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

The Washington Post argues that a disproportionate number of suicide bombings in Iraq is carried out by foreign jihadis, and that Saudis constitute 50 percent or more of the bombers. But if you look more closely, the article admits that there are only about 1,000 foreign jihadis fighting in Iraq. I'd figure the number of Iraqi guerrillas at 25,000 hardcore, and nearly twice that if we count weekend warriors, so this group is a relatively minor part of the whole.

What is the proof that they make up more of the suicide bombers? The names gleaned from radical Muslim fundamentalist websites, where "martyrdoms" are announced. Personally, I don't think you can trust those web sites. I think they are being manipulated by Iraqi Baath military intelligence, which benefits from being able to blame bombings of, e.g., Shiites on foreigners. The foreign jihadis in Iraq are not the major actors. The Baath and the remnants of the Iraq military are.

The attraction of the "foreigners thesis" for Washington is obvious. It allows the Bush administration to sidestep the implication that a substantial proportion of the Iraqi public violently rejects the US presence. And it implicitly ties Iraq to al-Qaeda, which accords with a long-term black psy-ops operation of the administration aimed at making a connection between Iraq and September 11 in the minds of Americans (actually, there is none).
Sun, May 15, 2005 0:30

McTag wrote:

Lash wrote:

Not answering for anyone else--

But, Saddam's behavior had situated him in the third round of inspections in a what? 10 year period? and--he was dodging the inspectors.

He had no intentions toward full disclosure.

Like a bad child, when he saw Bush massing in the Gulf, he acted more like he was complying with inspectors, but what ...person actually believed once Bush began removing the threat, Saddam would coninue compliance with inspectors?

Do you remember the scientist, who was dragged screaming from the UN caravan?

Who will say they trust Saddam Hussien's veracity?

Key words: UN inspectors, UN resolutions. Not US. Nothing to do with USA.

Key fact: There is no UN without the US. It'd be an overindulgent parlor game in our absence. You need to know that.

If the Bush administration didn't think they had to get another resolution they never would have went before the UN trying to get another resolution with those tricks and lies of Powells.

When they saw that they wasn't going to get a second resolution they just went ahead with their plans knowing they could get away with it because Bush was a popular president with a republican congress in the biggest country in the world. No other country would have gotten away with it. No other country would have tried. (at least that is how I see it)

Remember Suez in 1956? At least the U.S. is trying to establish a democracy. Different motives back then, I believe.

There is no analogy there. The English and the French tried to seize the Suez Canal, as the Egyptians were hoping to nationalize it, and hold the western world hostage with the canal, to attain their ends with regard to Israel. Eisenhower refused to back the play of the English and the French, and sent a carrier task force and Marines to the Lebanon in an implicit statement of support for the Israelis.

That episode bears not the least resemblance to the dirty little war in Iraq.

Yeap, and Panama.

You sure are trying hard to pick a fight with someone, aren't you?

Certainly . . . that assertion does not contradict mine. The English and French attempted to seize the canal, precisely because controlling access to oil would have been the means of Egyptian blackmail. Eisenhower's refusal to back the Anglo-French paratroopers certainly was a case of not wanting to up the ante. Sending the navy and the marines to Beirut also served notice that the United States was not prepared to back down on its support for Israel.

If you want to cast everything in terms of partisan sniping, help yourself. You needn't contend, however, that i've made any statements about "neocon inventions." I haven't. You sure are trying hard to pick a fight with someone, aren't you?

Guess it's safe to bet who voted how on Setanta's poll ...

Sweet Jesus, Setanta, calm down. I was merely showing that a parallel did exist between the alleged motives of the Suez incident and the Left's contention that "the dirty little war in Iraq" was nothing more than an oil grab.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I just don't agree with your interpretation of history.

You're gonna have that once in awhile, you know.