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

I don't disagree with any of this including your statement in blue.

To expect overly big government to exhibit anything other than overly big incompetence is unrealistic if not downright naive. The reality we face is that the USA cannot successfully protect itself against terrorism via any domestic defense anymore than can Britain, Spain, France, Indonesia, or Russia. Our only solution to successfully protecting ourselves against terrorism is to exterminate terrorism at its sources (e.g., Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia). This will take time, resources and lives -- a lot of time, resources, and lives.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

For decades, the United States and other countries have used
"renditions" to transport terrorist suspects from the country
where they were captured to their home country or to other
countries where they can be questioned, held, or brought to
justice. ... Rendition is a vital tool in combating transnational
terrorism. Its use is not unique to the United States, or to the
current administration.

US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, on her departure to
meet European leaders, 5 December 2005.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1905274,00.html

Others known to have used this policy include South Africa (during
the Apartheid era), Israel (on many occasions), North Korea,
Stalinist Russia, the Burmese junta, General Pinochet, Saddam
Hussein, Iran, etc, etc.

There was a time when the world looked to the United States as a
beacon of democracy. To the world's great loss, that guiding light
has been absolutely snuffed.

Conoleezza Rice says that "co-operation with the United States in
intelligence, law enforcement or military matters ... is a two-way
street". She may be waiting a long time. That dark and dirty street
that America now plays in is not one the rest of us would ever want to
travel.

From a friend in Australia

Suicide bombers kill Iraqi police

The police academy in Baghdad has been sealed off.

At least 36 Iraqi police officers have been killed and another 70 wounded in a suicide attack on a police academy in east Baghdad, the US military has said.

A US forces' statement said that the policemen were killed when two attackers blew themselves up inside the academy at about 1245 (0945 GMT).

The attack was the worst in Iraq since suicide bombers killed 74 people in two Shia mosques in November.

Iraqis queuing at recruitment centres have often been targeted by insurgents.

BBB, There will be those that will stand with Bush till hell freezes over. What Bush says during his speeches and what is reality in Iraq are missed by Bushco supporters, because they do not want to admit failure. As the investigative reporting by Knight Ridder in last weekends article stated, "Iraq is a mess." Bush keeps up his rhetoric that "we are making progress."

More killings, less production and export of oil, and less electricity since our invasion doesn't sound like "progress" by any stretch of the imagination.

U.S. has a long way to go to achieve objectives in Iraq
Posted on Fri, Dec. 02, 2005
U.S. has a long way to go to achieve objectives in Iraq
By Ron Hutcheson
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON

President Bush has laid out his markers for victory in Iraq, which raises an obvious question: How's it going over there?

The short answer: It's a mess. But that doesn't mean the effort is doomed to failure.

There are signs of progress amid the carnage, but for every step forward, there seems at least one step back, and the future is murky. Even some of the most pessimistic analysts admit that things still could work out. And most optimists acknowledge the risk of failure.

Here's a snapshot of conditions in the three broad areas that Bush outlined in Wednesday's speech at the U.S. Naval Academy and in his accompanying 35-page "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." Indicators in all three areas - political reform, security and economic reconstruction -show a mixed picture, at best.

POLITICAL REFORM:

National and provincial elections set for Dec. 15 will be a crucial test of Iraq's ability to form the kind of "free, representative government" that Bush envisions and that would mark a first in the Arab Middle East.

"All of the key political issues are now on the table," national security specialist Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote in a Nov. 29 analysis. "If this political process fails, there may be civil war or the country may be divided."

A key unanswered question is whether Sunni Muslim Arabs - the privileged group in Saddam Hussein's regime and the backbone of the current insurgency - will vote and join the political process. Another is whether Iraq's majority Shiite Muslims will offer Sunnis an incentive to stay on board, mainly by cutting them into the stream of Iraq's oil wealth, which is under Shiite and Kurdish lands.

Most Sunnis sat out the first round of parliamentary elections last January, when 8.5 million Iraqis turned out to select a temporary government dominated by rival Shiites and Kurds.

Sunni participation improved in October, when 10 million Iraqis approved a new constitution, but many went to the polls to torpedo the political framework and they failed. The hope now is that promises of a meaningful role in the new permanent government will lure them into politics and away from the insurgency.

Right now, there are only 17 Sunni Arabs in the 275-member National Assembly. That's about 6 percent, well below their 20 percent share of the population.

Tensions between Sunnis and Shiites are high, aggravated again last month by the discovery of an interrogation facility in the Interior Ministry. Evidence indicates that Shiite guards from an Iranian-backed militia routinely abused and sometimes tortured Sunni prisoners.

The discovery came amid other evidence of Shiite death squads and intimidation directed at Sunnis. Sunni bomb attacks have killed thousands of Shiites.

The real challenge may come after the elections, when the winners will have to establish a government that satisfies all the major groups. Encouraging signs - the emergence of competing political parties, the rapid growth of independent media outlets and the robust public debate - mean little if Iraqis can't bridge their ethnic and religious differences.

SECURITY:

U.S. troops have made significant progress in training Iraqi security forces, but the Iraqis are far from ready to take over. Their performance is uneven, their loyalties are questionable and they remain heavily dependent on American troops.

Of the 120 army and police battalions that have undergone training, only 40 are good enough to take the lead in joint operations with U.S. troops. Only one is considered good enough to operate with complete independence.

American officials have declined to provide details on the ethnic makeup of security forces, but many units are either all Shiites or all Kurds. In addition, heavily armed sectarian militias wield considerable influence.

Bush pointed out that Iraqis have taken over security in some parts of country. What he didn't say is that some cities, including Najaf and Karbala, have been turned over to Shiite militias.

"Under the guise of providing general security for various areas of Iraq they are, in fact, settling old scores," said Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.

While most of the violence in Iraq is limited to four of the country's 18 provinces, the hotspots encompass about 42 percent of the population. Six other provinces have experienced attacks in recent months.

The ability of terrorists and insurgents to strike seemingly at will heightens the sense of insecurity. Insurgents are killing Iraqi security forces at a rate of 214 a month, up from 160 a month in the last half of 2004. Islamic extremists continue to flock to Iraq through Syria and Iran. Eight-four American troops died in Iraq in November, 72 of them from enemy attacks.

Violence is expected to spike before the Dec. 15 elections. Ten Marines died in a single blast Thursday.

On a more positive note, there are signs that Iraqis are fed up with foreign fighters.

U.S. officials say tips about suspected terrorist activity have increased steadily, from about 500 a month in March to 4,700 in November. One recent tip led to a terrorist bomb factory stocked with about a dozen 500-pound bombs and 4,000 pounds of explosives.

Still, the insurgency appears to be as strong as ever. Estimates of insurgent strength - somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 in a nation of 27 million - haven't changed in well over a year.

"The success and cohesion of the Iraqi force-development effort is no more certain than Iraqi political success," Cordesman concluded. "Both have to make significant progress by the summer of 2006 if the coalition is to have a reason to stay."

ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION:

Despite improvements, Iraq's economy and its infrastructure remain in shambles.

Oil production, the most important source of income, has decreased from a high of 2.5 million barrels a day in September 2004 to less than 2 million barrels a day, primarily because of terrorist attacks and deteriorating infrastructure. That's less than before the war.

Gas lines, unheard-of before the war, are back in Baghdad after disappearing for a while. Efforts to establish the rule of law are colliding with corruption and lawlessness.

Security problems have hamstrung efforts to rebuild the electrical system, oil industry and other infrastructure. Only about $3 billion of the $13.5 billion in foreign pledges to Iraq has been spent. In any case, the pledged amount is far short of the $27 billion that the World Bank says Iraq needs for infrastructure.

Electricity generation is essentially back to prewar levels, but persistent blackouts have become a major source of frustration. The demand for power is up, driven by a spurt in sales of air conditioners and other electrical devices.

Unemployment estimates range from 27 percent to 40 percent. The inflation rate is about 20 percent, down from 32 percent last year and roughly the same as the prewar level. Economic growth is projected at 3.7 percent this year, which isn't good enough in a poor country with high unemployment.

On the bright side is a brisk consumer economy. Before the war, fewer than 900,000 Iraqis had telephones. Cellular phones were unavailable. Now there are more than 4.5 million phones, including some 3 million cell phones. Internet subscriptions have jumped from 4,500 before the U.S. invasion to more than 147,000.

Nearly 90 companies have registered with the new stock market since it opened in April 2004.

U.S. officials say 30,000 new businesses have opened, although countless others in troubled areas have closed.
------------------------------------------

Knight Ridder correspondent Nancy A. Youssef contributed to this report.

Americans and the American religion are a deadly threat to a major part of humanity. America must be exterminated or it will attempt to exterminate that major part of humanity that chooses not to adopt the American religion. Anyone or government that abetts America, is likewise a deadly threat to that same part of humanity.

You sound just like them Ican. Worse, even.

You really should take a look at yourself when you say things like this.

Cycloptichorn

"Bush has said the United States will not pull out of Iraq until Iraq's own forces can maintain security. In a speech last week, he said Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of securing the country."

Is this another Bush lie or is it something akin to Saddam's WMDs? Bush got the wrong info from his administration and Rummy?

Cyclo, Ican't is unable to relate his stance against fundamentalist Muslims vs fundamentalist christians, cause he's both of them! He's the ultimate fear monger on a2k that loves what Bushco has done and is doing. He's a believer of "might makes right."

It is a moral, ethical and legal outrage to grant the protections of the Geneva Conventions to any group of persons that repeatedly murders prisoners and civilians.

It is a moral, ethical and legal outrage to grant the protections of the Geneva Conventions to any group of persons that repeatedly violates or abets violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The USA is morally obligated to all persons to declare to all persons that we will not grant to any group of persons, that repeatedly violates or abets violation of the Geneva Conventions, the protections of the Geneva Conventions until such group of person stops violating or abetting the violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Those people and/or their cohorts and/or their abettors, who have declared war against civilians, and who have declared their intention to murder civilians, and who have murdered civilians, do not have any rights whatsoever "to legal representation nor to basic human rights and dignity."

Those who think otherwise are either immoral, unethical and illegal fools, or are immoral, unethical and illegal frauds.

I don't think you understand the point of the desire by many to honor the Geneva conventions.

It is about doing what is right regardless of what the enemy does; about not sinking to their level.

Torture is wrong. You don't need a convention to know that. It doesn't matter what the enemy is doing, it's still wrong to torture them.

I find it sad that you can't seem to figure this out....

Cycloptichorn

I find it sad that you or anyone else can think avoiding actions against self-declared murderers, that is required to prevent the continuing murder of civilians, is a moral position ... is taking the moral highground.

Let's assume, Cyclo, that you love a group of people who are faced with the following situation:
All those people you love will be murdered by al Qaeda, if the USA fails to torture a group of al Qaeda prisoners short of murdering, maiming, injuring, or disabling them.

Do you nevertheless advocate not so torturing those prisoners?

Do you advocate so torturing those prisoners?

To escape having to answer these questions are you going to claim that probably no one you love is faced with such a situation!

To escape having to answer these questions are you going to claim that probably no one at all is faced with such a situation!

Or are you going to answer these questions without trying to escape them.

Yes, I will answer the question without evasion:

There is no justifcation for torture. None. Even if it were my loved ones, my family, or me.

There is no evidence that torturing AQ prisoners, or anyone, leads to accurate information which may save my family. In fact, the exact opposite has been shown to be the truth many times.

How can you even ask such a silly question? As if I believe torture isn't okay, unless my loved ones are involved. Ridiculous. My potential personal pain has nothing to do with what is right or wrong for our nation to be doing.

That being said, I laugh at the fact that you must resort to a logical fallacy - Appealing to Extremes - in order to make your case. It's really funny. The debate over torture being wrong has nothing to do with the supposed 'imminent nuclear bomb' situation that the Righties always toss around, and everything to do with a sense of moral decency and humanity.

Cycloptichorn

Hypothetically, if "torturing" someone may yield certain information necessary to prevent a nuclear attack that will kill millions of innocent people, are you asserting that "torturing" that person to get that information is not justified?

Yes, I am asserting exactly that. It is never right to commit an evil act, even if you believe it will lead to a good outcome later on. The act itself is still just as evil.

Once again, even though I answered it, your hypothetical is merely Appealing to Extremes; both of us know that the vast majority of tortured prisoners by the US or allies of ours have nothing to do with imminent death of anyone; you've merely picked an example designed to frighten people into choosing a solution that they ordinarily would not. Which is sad.

If shooting a 10-year old girl in the head will somehow magically save a village full of people, would you pull the trigger and put a slug in her brain?

Cycloptichorn

The point which makes the headlines here in Europe and especially Germany is
- that an innocent German citizen was kidnapped,
- was totured,
- was hidden in a secret prison for 5 months.

This has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions but is strictly illegal here. (As is dunking a prisoner's head in cold water, btw.)

WH illustrates my point nicely; all this 'to save your family's life' nonsense has nothing to do with what actually goes on.

Don't forget Hersh's description of the pictures and video they won't release from AG; including rape and beatings of children. I suppose they had information about a nuke that was about to hit Ohio or something, and it had to be done. Right.

Cycloptichorn

The likes of icant will never understand what is morally wrong. They think all defensive measures are justified on the basis of "fear." They don't give a shet about human dignity or the legal systems of this country or the world.