0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 06:28 am
Gel, has Blair acknowledged the leaked document is real or said words to that effect?

If he has, then maybe after all this time we can finally get somewhere in at least persuading the common "Joe Public" that Bush and Blair mislead and manipulated their way into war.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 07:01 am
CNN article

Have not tried that hard to find out more ... am assuming denial. Here is one aricle.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 07:18 am
It seems he is not denying it, he is downplaying it. Interesting because now it can't be dismissed as conspiracy theories.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 10:51 am
revel wrote:
It seems he is not denying it, he is downplaying it. Interesting because now it can't be dismissed as conspiracy theories.


I think it timely to post here an except of that which was previously posted near the end of the predecessor of this thread.

Foxfyre wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Pre-empting a tyrant consists of stopping him from hurting you more before he hurts you more. That is what we are attempting to do in Afghanistan and that is what we are attempting to do in Iraq


There are some, however, who think you must be seriously hurt or killed before you are allowed to protect yourself. The frightened wife must not get a restraining order against the man she knows will hurt or kill her until he actually does the deed. They are more concerned about the feelings of the young thug on the corner than they are about the fears of the driver who offends him when he locks the car door. The civil rights of the criminal are more important than the rights of innocent people to not be threatened by him. The rights of a terrorist to not be embarrassed or made uncomfortable are more important than the need of an innocent victim about to be beheaded. So, a pre-emptive strike against a country with a track record for terrorist acts and that is on the record as having intentions to hurt you must not be touched until they commit the act.
...


Suppose all but one of the reasons given by either Blair or Bush for invading Iraq was known by both to be the only actual valid reason. Would that one reason be sufficient for invading these two countries, if that one reason were:

The US invasion of Iraq and the US invasion of Afghanistan were both pre-emptive wars by both US and British govenment declarations, and by valid logic in order to prevent future murderers of US and British citizens. Al Qaeda declared war against Americans in four different fatwas in 1992, 1996, 1998, and 2004. These fatwas (except the 2004 fatwa) and the war they repeatedly declared were actually perpetrated against Americans prior to our invasions of Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in March 2003.

Quote:
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, i.e., The 9-11 Commission Report alleged, 8/21/2004 in CHAPTERS 1, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1: Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda et al perpetrated the following mass murders of Americans:
1. 2/1993 WTC in NYC--6 dead Americans;
2. 11/1995 Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh--5 dead Americans;
3. 6/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran--19 dead Americans;
4. 8/1998 American Embassy in Nairobi--12 dead Americans;
5. 12/2000 Destroyer Cole in Aden--17 dead Americans;
6. 9/11/2001 WTC in NYC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania Field--approximately 1500 dead Americans plus approximately 1500 dead non-Americans.


Quote:
President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that "harbor" terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that "support" terrorists.


The US subsequently attempted to pre-empt further attacks by al Qaeda and remove al Qaeda training bases and camps by invading and replacing the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, because of the failures of the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq to remove al Qaeda training bases and camps from their respective countries.

The real objective (all the contrary political propaganda not withstanding) of the invasion of Afghanistan was removal of the al Qaeda training bases and camps in Afghanistan and the replacement of the Taliban regime with a government that would not allow al Qaeda bases and camps to be re-established in Afghanistan once the US left Afghanistan.

The real objective (all the contrary political propaganda not withstanding) of the invasion of Iraq was removal of the al Qaeda training bases and camps in Iraq and the replacement of the Saddam regime with a government that would not allow al Qaeda taining bases and camps to be re-established in Iraq once the US left Iraq.[/quote]

After both Bush and Blair voluntarily submit to public, satellite and cable, network-televised, one-hour spankings, would it be ok with eveyone, if we were to proceed to win in Iraq and Afghanistan by securing in those countries democracies of their people's own design?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 10:54 am
No

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 10:58 am
So, you're into spankings eh ... naughty naughty!
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 11:01 am
oops ... ya slipped in front of me cyc Very Happy
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 11:07 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No Cycloptichorn

How about voting Bush and Blair out of office? Will that suffice for you to support our getting on with it and winning in Iraq and Afghanistan?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 11:10 am
Well,

I don't see how we can cut and run without inviting a disaster in Iraq.

But chopping off the heads of the leadership is not the solution either; we need real change, pervasive change, at many levels of our gov't and military, in order to salvage the situation.

Highly suggest ya read the following so we can discuss:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050905D.shtml

Quote:
The Quagmire
By Robert Dreyfuss
Rolling Stone

Thursday 05 May 2005

As the Iraq war drags on, it's beginning to look a lot like Vietnam.

The news from Iraq is bad and getting worse with each passing day. Iraqi insurgents are stepping up the pace of their attacks, unleashing eleven deadly bombings on April 29th alone. Many of the 150,000 Iraqi police and soldiers hastily trained by U.S. troops have deserted or joined the insurgents. The cost of the war now tops $192 billion, rising by $1 billion a week, and the corpses are piling up: Nearly 1,600 American soldiers and up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, as well as 177 allied troops and 229 private contractors. Other nations are abandoning the international coalition assembled to support the U.S., and the new Iraqi government, which announced its new cabinet to great fanfare on April 27th, remains sharply split along ethnic and religious lines. But to hear President Bush tell it, the war in Iraq is going very, very well. In mid-April, appearing before 25,000 U.S. soldiers at sun-drenched Fort Hood, in Texas, Bush declared that America has succeeded in planting democracy in Iraq, creating a model that will soon spread throughout the Middle East. "That success is sending a message from Beirut to Tehran," the president boasted to chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" from the troops. "The establishment of a free Iraq is a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." Staying on message, aides to Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, later suggested that U.S. forces could be reduced from 142,000 to 105,000 within a year.

In private, however, senior military advisers and intelligence specialists on Iraq offer a starkly different picture. Two years after the U.S. invasion, Iraq is perched on the brink of civil war. Months after the election, the new Iraqi government remains hunkered down inside the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, surviving only because it is defended by thousands of U.S. troops. Iraqi officials hold meetings and press conferences in Alamo-like settings, often punctuated by the sounds of nearby explosions. Outside the Green Zone, party offices and government buildings are surrounded by tank traps, blast walls made from concrete slabs eighteen feet high, and private militias wielding machine guns and AK-47s. Even minor government officials travel from fort to fort in heavily armed convoys of Humvees.

"I talk to senior military people and combat commanders who tell me that the situation is much more precarious than admitted," says Col. Patrick Lang, former Middle East chief for the Defense Intelligence Agency. "Even inside the Green Zone you are not safe, because of indirect fire. And if you were to venture outside at night, they'd probably find your headless body the next morning."

Car bombs rock Baghdad and other cities virtually every day, and insurgents conduct hundreds of attacks each week on U.S. troops, Iraqi recruits and civilian police. Thousands of Iraqi police and soldiers have scattered or disappeared, and countless others either do no fighting or covertly support the insurgency. The out-of-control security situation means that few reconstruction projects can get off the ground. Transport is crippled, and Iraq's core infrastructure -- its roads and bridges, its power plants, its water-treatment facilities, and its all-important oil fields, pipelines and oil terminals -- remains heavily damaged from the war.

According to U.S. officials, the resistance attacks are being aided by an extensive network of informers. Insurgents, apparently making use of engineers and former insiders, have been able to hit oil installations and power plants expertly, foiling U.S. efforts to sustain Iraqi oil exports and to provide electricity and water to Iraqi cities. "They have tentacles that reach all through the new government and the new military," Lt. Gen. Walter Buchanan, who commands U.S. air forces in the Persian Gulf, admitted recently.

The new government is not only powerless to stop the attacks by insurgents, it is dominated by the same clique of warlords and exiles who lobbied the Pentagon to go to war in the first place, many of whom have close ties to the warring camps that control vast parts of the country. "In the Arab world, Iraq is seen as a zone of chaos in a pre-civil-war situation, held together only by the U.S. occupation," says Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under Bush's father. A brief survey of the three major forces in Iraq -- Shiites in the south, Sunnis in the center and Kurds in the north -- makes clear the sharp divisions that threaten to blow the country apart:

The Shiites: The Bush administration's plan for reconstruction envisioned the Shiites -- the majority population long oppressed by Saddam Hussein -- as the chief power in a democratic Iraq. The United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite party backed by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, won a majority in the new national assembly. But a militant bloc of fundamentalist Shiites has been using its newfound strength -- and its street thugs -- to forcibly impose Islamic law throughout the southern half of Iraq. Militias loyal to rival Shiite factions are blowing up liquor stores and movie theaters, forcing women to wear ultraconservative Islamic dress and assassinating secular officials and other opponents.

One militant force, the Mahdi Army, recently stormed a peaceful picnic in Basra, where they ripped the blouse of a woman wearing Western garb. "We will send a picture to your parents," a gunman told her, "so they can see how you were dancing naked with men." The Mahdi, which battled U.S. forces during two major uprisings last year, is fiercely loyal to the charismatic and fanatical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, the scion of a leading fundamentalist Shiite family. Al-Sadr's militia, hammered in last year's clashes, is quickly rebuilding with new recruits armed with machine guns, rocket launchers and rocket-propelled grenades. It now controls a big chunk of Basra, Iraq's only port and second-largest city, along with Kut, Amarah, Nasariyah and the huge eastern district of Baghdad known as Sadr City. In April, al-Sadr organized a rally of 300,000 people to demand that U.S. troops leave Iraq.

The Mahdi Army's main rival for power among the Shiites is the Badr Brigade, which has an estimated 20,000 men under arms. Badr is run by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which was founded by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and trained by his Revolutionary Guards. SCIRI's leaders still have close ties to Iran, even though many of its officials have been elected to the new Iraqi parliament. The hard-line group is powerful in Iraq's two holy cities, Najaf and Karbala, and controls another chunk of Basra.

Other Shiite forces include the Dawa Islamic Party, whose chieftain, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, is Iraq's new prime minister. Dawa was an underground terrorist organization in Iraq from the 1960s through the 1980s, and militants linked to the group attacked the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait in 1983. While the State Department says it has no evidence to connect al-Jaafari himself to any terrorist acts, those who study the group suspect that Dawa also gets support from Iran. "They've been spreading money to everyone," says Juan Cole, an expert on Shiism at the University of Michigan.

The Sunnis: In central Iraq, millions of formerly dominant Sunnis opted out of the elections for the new government, which they see as being almost entirely in the hands of southern Shiites and northern Kurds. There are now several dozen Sunni organizations fighting the U.S. occupation, broadly divided into two camps: mainstream, secular Arab nationalists who served as military officers and Baath Party leaders under Saddam, and Islamist fundamentalists, including extremists associated with Abu Musab Zarqawi.

Most of the attacks on American forces -- the roadside IEDs, mortar strikes and full-scale assaults -- have been conducted by the mainstream resistance, who are intent on driving out the U.S. They have brought down helicopters, destroyed at least eighty of the Abrams tanks that are the mainstay of the U.S. occupation, and mounted large-scale actions involving scores of fighters, such as the April attacks on the Abu Ghraib prison and at Al Qaim near the Syrian border. In one recent incident, car bombs exploded simultaneously in front of and behind a U.S. convoy, which then came under intense fire from automatic weapons wielded by snipers inside abandoned buildings along the route.

The Islamist extremists, including partisans tied to Al Qaeda, mix attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops with bloody suicide bombings against Shiites and other Iraqi civilians on pilgrimages and in mosques. According to intelligence sources, including U.S. military officers who travel frequently to Iraq, such attacks on civilians have fueled a split between the two camps. "There is a big gap between the mainstream resistance and the extremists," says a U.S. military officer, who added that the nationalists are debating how to create a political force to represent them, much as the Irish Republican Army had both military and political wings.

The Sunni insurgency is larger and more homegrown than the Bush administration acknowledges. American forces, after first insisting that the resistance was composed of no more than 5,000 foreign fighters with ties to Al Qaeda, now hold more than twice that many prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca and Camp Cropper -- and admit that as many as 20,000 well-funded fighters remain at large. "We're facing a well-developed, mature insurgency with the support of the local population," Maj. John Reed, stationed outside the city of Husaybah, said recently.

Even Fallujah, a city of 300,000 that was virtually obliterated in a U.S. blitz last fall, is quietly re-emerging as a center of resistance. Fallujah's mayor, in the circumspect language of one U.S. official, is "doing some things not positive in nature." Meanwhile, the city of Mosul has become the newest hotbed of the insurgency. Last fall, during an attack by insurgents there, thousands of Iraqi police melted away at the first sign of violence. "I went from 2,000 police to 50," a U.S. commander on the scene told reporters.

According to Wayne White, who served until March as director of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team, Iraq cannot hold together unless a substantial bloc of Sunnis is brought into the government. But in Baghdad, the newly ascendant Shiite political parties plan to purge Iraq's security forces and fledgling intelligence service of their few remaining Sunnis. Such a move would gut the only forces in Iraq that are actually taking on the insurgency, and would alienate the remaining Sunni moderates, pushing them over into the resistance. Leading the purge, sources say, will be none other than Ahmed Chalabi, the darling of U.S. neoconservatives and Pentagon officials who helped engineer the American invasion.

The Kurds: A non-Arab population that inhabits the three northern provinces, the Kurds have long been America's closest friends in Iraq. But if the country descends into civil war, it will likely be because of the Kurds, whose territory is even further beyond the control of the Green Zone-based government than the Shiite south. Since the U.S. invasion, the Kurds have run a de facto state of their own, controlled by their militia under the command of two warlords, Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and Massoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party. Talabani, who was named president of Iraq in April, makes no bones about his beliefs. "Historically and demographically speaking, Kurdistan was never part of Iraq," he says. In January, about ninety-seven percent of Kurds voted in favor of an independent Kurdistan.

"The central government has no authority whatsoever in Kurdistan," says Peter Galbraith, a former State Department official who is a longtime Kurdish sympathizer. "The government doesn't even have an office there. No Iraqi flag flies there. Signs say, WELCOME TO KURDISTAN OF IRAQ."

To make matters worse, the Kurds have set their sights on Kirkuk, a multiethnic city that sits atop Iraq's vast northern oil fields. Even though the city lies outside of Kurdistan, Talabani calls it "the Jerusalem of Kurdistan," and Barzani says, "We are ready to fight and to sacrifice our souls to preserve its identity." The Kurds are already engaging in some brutal expulsions of Arabs from the city. "They're doing their own ethnic cleansing, and it's dirty stuff," says Judith Yaphe, a former CIA analyst on Iraq. A full-scale Kurdish takeover, however, would be resisted by Arabs and Turks in Kirkuk, pushing Iraq even faster toward civil war. And the Kurds would roil Iraq's neighbors Turkey, Iran and Syria, which fear their own Kurdish minorities. Many experts predict Turkey would invade northern Iraq to prevent the Kurdish seizure of Kirkuk.

If it comes to civil war, the disintegration of Iraq will be extremely bloody. "The breakup of Iraq would be nearly as bad as the breakup of India in 1947," says David Mack, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state with wide experience in the Arab world. "The Kurds can't count on us to come in and save their bacon. Do they think we are going to mount an air bridge on their behalf?" Israel might support the Kurds, but Iran would intervene heavily in support of the Shiites with men, arms and money, while Arab countries would back their fellow Sunnis. "You'd see Jordan, Saudi Arabia, even Egypt intervening with everything they've got -- tanks, heavy weapons, lots of money, even troops," says White, the former State Department official.

"If they see the Sunnis getting beaten up by the Shiites, there will be extensive Arab support," agrees a U.S. Army officer. "There will be no holds barred."

In fact, it may already be too late to prevent Iraq from exploding. Iraq's new government is stuck in a fatal Catch-22: To have any credibility among Iraqis it must break with the U.S. and oppose the occupation, but it couldn't last a week without the protection of American troops. The Bush administration is also stuck. Its failure to stabilize Iraq, and the continuing casualties there, have led to a steady slide in the president's popularity: Polls show that a majority of Americans no longer think that the war in Iraq was worth fighting in the first place. Yet withdrawing from Iraq would only lead to more chaos, and the rest of the world has exhibited little interest in cleaning up America's mess. Of the two dozen or so countries that sent troops to Iraq, fewer and fewer remain: Spain, Portugal, Hungary and New Zealand have already quit, and the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Italy have announced they are getting out. Even if the United Nations agreed to step in, there is little or no chance that the administration will internationalize control over Iraq. In the face of a full-scale civil war in Iraq, says a source close to the U.S. military, Bush intends to go it alone.

"Our policy is to make Iraq a colony," he says. "We won't let go."


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 11:20 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Well,

I don't see how we can cut and run without inviting a disaster in Iraq.

But chopping off the heads of the leadership is not the solution either; we need real change, pervasive change, at many levels of our gov't and military, in order to salvage the situation.

Highly suggest ya read the following so we can discuss:
...
Quote:
The Quagmire
By Robert Dreyfuss
Rolling Stone

Thursday 05 May 2005

As the Iraq war drags on, it's beginning to look a lot like Vietnam.

...

Even if the United Nations agreed to step in, there is little or no chance that the administration will internationalize control over Iraq. In the face of a full-scale civil war in Iraq, says a source close to the U.S. military, Bush intends to go it alone.

"Our policy is to make Iraq a colony," he says. "We won't let go."
Cycloptichorn

Since I am not in a position to confirm or refute this article, I will for the sake of furthering rational discussion assume it all is 100% true.

What do you recommend be done to fix this mess?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 11:21 am
Proper formatting would help.

More in a minute, lol

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 02:26 pm
Reminder!

Cycloptichorn wrote:
...Highly suggest ya read the following so we can discuss ... Cycloptichorn


Did that!

Cycloptichorn wrote:
...More in a minute... Cycloptichorn


Time's a wastin'! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 02:40 pm
Yeah, yeah, I'z busier at work than usual today.

Hold your water, I'll get there sooner or later

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 06:03 pm
Funny how we always see only what we want to see.

From your copied review of Ranum's The Fronde, Walter:

Although he readily admits that the Fronde was nowhere near as threatening to the monarchy as the sixteenth-century religious wars or the Revolution of 1789, it clearly had what he calls "revolutionary moments," when the bourgeois urban masses threw their support behind the judiciary elites in their dispute with the queen regent and the royal council. When this occurred, as in Paris between August 1648 and March 1649, and in Bordeaux in the summer of 1650, the body politic and public order were clearly threatened.
------------
The review of the book also mentions that most historians "overrated" the effect of the Fronde....which clearly shows that the majority opinion agrees with mine. Whether it is right or wrong, the assertion of it--while it may elicit disagreement--does not call for dismissive statements.

Walter--

If you like the period, I thought Mazarin: The Crisis of Absolutism in France was written well--and Geoffery Treasure, the author, took advantage of some new material that has emerged since that long silence you mentioned in an earlier post.

Is Mazarin's reputation ALL bad?

(OK, will try to stop about France.)
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 06:12 pm
We made the bed. Now we have to lie in it, with others, until the bed linens can be changed.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 05:01 am
Quote:
Last Update: Tuesday, May 10, 2005. 10:27pm (AEST)
Iraqi police vent anger at US after car bombings

Iraqi police hurled insults at US soldiers after two suicide car bomb blasts in Baghdad killed at least seven people and left 19 wounded, including policemen.

"It's all because you're here," a policeman shouted in Arabic at a group of US soldiers after the latest in a bloody wave of attacks that have rocked Baghdad this month.

"Get out of our country and there will be no more explosions," he told the uncomprehending Americans staring at the smouldering wreck of a car bomb.

The explosion wounded three policemen as they stood guard at the entrance to the River Police compound on Abu Nawas street in the centre of the capital.

"We were near the headquarters and all of a sudden a Ford car rushed very fast at the closed gate. One of the guards opened fire and the car stopped, but moments later it exploded," Sergeant Abbas Mohammed told AFP.

"One guard was burnt and is in very critical condition. Two others were caught by the blast," he said.

Another suicide bomber also tried to attack a US army patrol on the central Saadun street but missed and smashed into other vehicles, setting them ablaze.

At least seven civilians were killed and 16 wounded, police and medics said.

"I was driving my bus with many passengers and on the other side of the street a US convoy was passing by," 45-year-old minibus driver Abdullah Jassim Mohammed said.

"All of a sudden there was a big explosion and I saw a man dying in front of me. The US convoy was unharmed," the driver said, who sustained slight head wounds.

"Since Americans invaded our country they have brought nothing but evil."

- AFP


Source
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 05:17 am
Quote:

Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan
1. American Blasphemy Against Koran Sparks Riot, Prot...
American Blasphemy Against Koran Sparks Riot, Protests in Afghanistan, Pakistan

The Guardian reports that news (from Newsweek) that US soldiers desecrated the Koran--and at one point flushed pages of it down the toilet as a technique for humiliating and breaking detainees at Guantanamo--has provoked a second day of protests and then rioting in Jalalabad, this time with loss of life. On Tuesday, 2000 students had demonstrated. On Wednesday, 5,000 to 10,000 university, medical and K-12 students came out, and then they went on the attack, including against US troops. Four died and 70 were injured


"At least four people were killed and dozens injured in a riot in eastern Afghanistan yesterday after police fired on demonstrators protesting about reports that the Qur'an had been desecrated by US soldiers in Guantanamo Bay. Offices in Jalalabad were set on fire, shops sacked and consulates and UN buildings attacked by rioters, according to witnesses. Police fired to disperse crowds several times and army helicopters were said to have "buzzed" the crowds. Doctors in the city confirmed that four people had died."



Pakistan's Dawn is more explicit about the "offices" attacked:


Police in Jalalabad opened fire earlier on Wednesday to break up an enraged mob of several thousand people that torched the governor's house, the Pakistani consulate and several foreign aid agencies, witnesses said. Workers in the Pakistani consulate were forced to take refuge in a nearby house as protesters torched the building. "Uncountable people attacked the consulate, we took refuge in the neighbour's house," a Pakistani diplomat said on condition of anonymity. In a second day of protests, the crowd went on the rampage chanting slogans including "Death to America" as well as burning the Stars and Stripes and effigies of US President George Bush, witnesses said. Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the riots showed the "inability" of the war-shattered country's institutions to deal with such situations, but added the demonstrations at least meant democracy was flourishing.



Uh, Hamid, this incident does not show a flourishing democracy. In democracies people achieve change through the ballot box and political discourse, not by burning buildings down.

Jalalabad is an eastern Pushtun city in the main, and the attack on Pakistan's consulate presumably means that the Taliban and their cousins now view Pakistan as a proxy for the United States.

The Koran desecration has also stirred Pakistani politicians to protest. Opposition politician and former world-class cricketer Imran Khan called for an end to Pakistan's military cooperation with Washington unless President Bush apologizes for what was done to the Muslim holy book. The lower house of parliament suspended business on Monday to discuss the issue. ' "We are fighting for them as a frontline state in the war on terrorism and they are desecrating our holy book. This is too humiliating," said the leader of the opposition, Maulana Fazlur Rehman. '' Fazlur Rahman is actually pro-Taliban and pro-al-Qaeda, and he is seizing on this incident to argue that Gen. Pervez Musharraf is a US lackey and isn't not even getting basic respect in return.

Pious Sunni Muslims consider the Koran to be the very word of God, which pre-existed the material world and was inscribed on a celestial "Tablet." The Koran itself says,

"That is indeed a noble Qur'an
In a Book kept hidden
Which none toucheth save the purified,
A Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds."
-Surat Al-Waq`ia

Muslims are not to touch a copy of the Koran when they have not performed their purifying ritual ablutions (washing in a special way with water), called wudu`.

In secular American society, I suppose the shock value here could only be hinted at if we imagined someone flushing a small American flag down the toilet. But probably we can't imagine it at all.

The technique of humiliating Muslims as a way of "breaking" them for interrogation has often veered toward torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and it wasn't effective as a technique. The Israeli flag was also used at one point, apparently. The US military has a tradition of such humiliations, going back to treatment of the Filipino Muslim rebels in the early 20th century. But there is a difference between humiliating Muslim prisoners and humiliating Islam.

Whatever goddam military genius came up with the bright idea of flushing the Koran down the toilet at Guantanamo should be court-martialed, and Bush had better get out there apologizing before this thing spirals further out of control.
Thu, May 12, 2005 0:30


[URL=file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/G/Application%20Data/Mozilla/Firefox/Profiles/li81h334.default/chrome/sage.html]Source & links[/URL]
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 05:34 am
It seems to me the situation in Iraq is spiralling out of control. There was a window of opportunity 2 years ago in the immediate aftermath of the removal of Saddam to take a firm grip on the country.

But because there were never enough troops (this was afterall InvasionLite (TM)) USUK never got on top of the security situation. As soon as we allowed the Ba'athists to link up with the Islamists its become impossible. USUK forces dont control Iraq. They sit in their heavily guarded compounds, making the occasional patrol and hoping they get back in one piece. The rebuilding of Iraq cannot begin until the bombings stop, and the bombings wont stop until USUK forces leave. I have no idea how we get out of this mess.

When I "signed up" for the invasion it was on the understanding that USUK forces would be making a safer world by disarming Iraq of its hidden wmd.

That was soon shown to be garbage.

So then I justified it by saying well ok maybe there weren't any wmd, but at least we have got rid of Saddam, and there is an opportunity of building a much better country which will allow us to develop their oil resources.

But we never got going with the reconstruction, because we were too busy building fortresses for our own troops.

And the oil companies said "We aint going there whilst there are bombs going off, its not safe".

So we have accomplished nothing. And its cost a fortune and many many lives.

There is a word to describe a situation where a military intervention fails to establish any of its military or political objectives, and that word is defeat.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 05:38 am
Lash wrote:
Funny how we always see only what we want to see.


So it seems, whether it is your obstinate refusal to see that you were wrong about the Wars of the Fronde, or your obstinate refusal to see that you are wrong about the war in Iraq.

But if it is spelled out for you, and you still can't see it, there's nothing Walter, or I, or anyone else can do about it.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 06:11 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:


When I "signed up" for the invasion it was on the understanding that USUK forces would be making a safer world by disarming Iraq of its hidden wmd.

That was soon shown to be garbage.

So then I justified it by saying well ok maybe there weren't any wmd, but at least we have got rid of Saddam, and there is an opportunity of building a much better country which will allow us to develop their oil resources.

Geeeez, you seem like an intelligent guy, Steve. How did you get so snookered?


There is a word to describe a situation where a military intervention fails to establish any of its military or political objectives, and that word is defeat.

Yup, it's the new Vietnam. When will they ever learn, when will they learn?

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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/25/2025 at 03:11:37