0
   

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

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 04:42 pm
It isn't a matter of pessimism, it's a matter of understanding the tactics of the situation.

I mean, this is going to be the example of how to run a guerrila war taught to war college students in just a few years.

In just 4 days we'll have been at war for 1000 days, with an average of 2.35 deaths per day. A number quite low compared to past wars, where open fighting was the call of the day; now the tactics and armament have shown just how hard a small force can make life for a big force in foreign territory.

I have yet to see evidence that, given the nature of the situation and the money supporting the insurgency, the struggle could not go on for quite some time.

I sometimes feel like the Righties believe that, after the election, things will settle down in Iraq as everything just starts working according to plan. That the spirit of democracy will grip the country, and the Sunnis will realize that they can achieve what they want by playing fair in the gov't and pressure the insurgents and AQ to leave; that the Shi'ites will cut the Sunnis and Kurds a fair deal, and not become allies of Iran; and that the US will be allowed to keep our military bases on Iraqi soil in perpetuity as we watch more and more American oil companies come into Iraq to develop the reserves.

Well, I don't f*cking buy it. Such a scenario flies in the face of every availble piece of evidence.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 04:46 pm
Cyclo, When we also consider the number of innocent Iraqis killed by this war, an important issue to some of us, the number killed during the 1,000 days are not acceptable by any measure of "success."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 04:57 pm
Thomas wrote:
A couple of pages back, Ican asserted that there was a proven relation between Iraq and Al Quaeda. As this article in today's New York Times reports, the CIA's account of this relation mainly rests on the testimony of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.
...

This article is at best a falsity and at worst a lie. Specifically, this statement in the article is false:
Quote:
December 9, 2005
Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied to Coercion Claim
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.
...


First, I have repeatedly provided evidence, none of which has been refuted by contrary evidence, that the Iraq problem that developed after the 1991 Gulf War became known to the Clinton administration from multiple sources. For example [my bold face added]:
www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
Quote:
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.


Second, I have repeatedly provided evidence that has not been refuted by contrary evidence, that the government of Iraq attacked the Kurdish autonomous zone on the ground in 1996.

Third, I have repeatedly provided evidence that has not been refuted by contrary evidence, that the Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camps:
(1) Were established with the help of Osama bin Laden in northeastern Iraq in December 2001;
(2) Grew substantially by the time they were invaded by the coalition in March 2003;
(3) Were not attacked by the government of Iraq prior to or after March 2003.

Fourth, I have repeatedly provided evidence that has not been refuted by contrary evidence, that when in 2002 the USA made two requests that the Iraq government extradite the leadership of the al Qaeda affiliated Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camps:
(1) The Iraq government ignored these USA requests;
(2) The Iraq government ignored this accusation when the USA made it to the UN February 2003.

Fifth, I have repeatedly provided evidence that has not been refuted by contrary evidence, that two of Osama bin Laden's deputies had connections with the Iraq government both prior to and after December 2001.

Sixth, no evidence has been provided that the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libinone, was a source, muchless a primary source, of any of the above referenced evidence.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 05:16 pm
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 06:52 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
December 8, 2005
British Court Rules Against Evidence Gained in Torture
By SARAH LYALL
LONDON, Dec. 8 - Thrusting itself into the middle of a stormy international debate, Britain's highest court declared today that evidence obtained through torture - no matter who had done the torturing - was not admissible in British courts. It also said that Britain had a "positive obligation" to uphold anti-torture principles abroad as well as at home.

"The issue is one of constitutional principle, whether evidence obtained by torturing another human being may lawfully be admitted against a party to proceedings in a British court, irrespective of where, or by whom, or on whose authority the torture was inflected," said Lord Bingham, writing the lead opinion for the Law Lords, roughly equivalent to the United States Supreme Court. "To that question I would give a very clear negative answer."

The ruling dealt specifically with the case of 10 men who were detained and held without charge in Britain on suspicion of being terrorists after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. But while the question at hand applied only to English law, several of the lords explicitly referred - not at all flatteringly - to the standards of evidence applied in the United States in the fight against terror.


"The issue is one of constitutional principle, whether evidence obtained by torturing another human being may lawfully be admitted against a party to proceedings in a British court."

Without exception of any kind, I agree that evidence obtained by torture of any kind ought not be admitted against anyone who is party to proceedings in any court in the world.

But that is not the issue being debated here. We're debating whether or not information obtained by torture of any kind ought to be utilized to prevent murder of civilians. In particular, we're debating whether or not information obtained by torture of any kind ought to be utilized to prevent murder of civilians by freely self-declared (i.e., freely self-confessed) MAAOMOC (i.e., Murderers And Abettors Of Murderers Of Civilians. I have been saying YES. You have been saying NO.

As you know, I am not interested in convicting MAAOMOC. I am solely interested in stopping MAAOMOC from murdering civilians. I believe that all torture other than killing, maiming, disabling or injuring MAAOMOC is not only morally justifiable, it is morally imperative to use such torture to stop MAAOMOC from murdering civilians. My only reason for excluding torture consisting of killing, maiming, disabling or injuring is not out of concern for any of our MAAOMOC prisoners. My only reason is concern for our interrogators. I don't want them burdened by the commission of such acts.

There are at least two kinds of critical and verifiable information that can probably be obtained by torture other than killing, maiming, disabling or injuring MAAOMOC. The first is the location of MAAOMOC ordnance storage. The second is the location of MAAOMOC sanctuaries. If the interrogated prisoner lies for any reason, the military can determine that fact by direct inspection. If the prisoner did lie, the interrogator can try again.

Quickly locating and destroying MAAOMOC ordnance storage and MAAOMOC sanctuaries is critical to stopping MAAOMOC from murdering civilians.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 07:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Cyclo, When we also consider the number of innocent Iraqis killed by this war, an important issue to some of us, the number killed during the 1,000 days are not acceptable by any measure of "success."

What none of us know is how many innocent Iraqis would have been killed had we not invaded Iraq. What none of us know is how many civilians worldwide will not be killed because we invaded Iraq.

What we do know is that which the freely self-declared (i.e., freely self-confessed) MAAOMOC (i.e., Murderers And Abettors Of Murderers Of Civilians) have told us they will do and are doing and are attempting to do.

In its 1996 fatwah al Qaeda stated:
Quote:
Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.


In its 1998 fatwah al Qaeda stated:
Quote:
~when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped", Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

~to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.


In its 2004 fatwah, al Qaeda stated:
Quote:
Once again, we repeat our call and send this clear message to our Muslim brothers, warning against fellowship with the Crusaders, the Americans, Westerners and all idols in the Arab Gulf. Muslims should not associate with them anywhere, be it in their homes, complexes or travel with them by any means of transportation.

No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.

Everything related to them such as complexes, bases, means of transportation, especially Western and American Airlines, will be our main and direct targets in our forthcoming operations on our path of Jihad that we, with Allah's Power, will not turn away from.


I think it morally reprehensible to not torture our MAAOMOC prisoners -- other than killing, maiming, disabling or injuring them -- in order to learn the locations of MAAOMOC ordnance storages and MAAOMOC sanctuaries and thereby helping stop MAAOMOC from murdering civilians.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 07:42 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Early January 2003, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
...
The CIA issues an updated version of its September 2002 classified internal report (see September 2002) which stated that according to “sources of varying reliability,” Iraq had provided “training in poisons and gases” to al-Qaeda operatives. The allegation in that report was based on information provided by a captured Libyan national by the name of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. In this new updated version of the report, the CIA adds that “the detainee [al-Libi] was not in a position to know if any training had taken place.” It is not known whether this report is seen by White House officials. [Newsweek, 11/10/2005]


Looks to me, Mr. New York Times, it is irrelevant whether Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was telling the truth. It's quite a huge stretch to claim his statements are the primary reason we invaded Iraq.

But when you've long ago converted to either the al-Qaeda religion or to the hate-Bush religion, you cannot be reasonably expected to quickly re-learn right from wrong, truth from falsity, logic from illogic, life from death ... or even up from down. Sad
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 07:43 pm
Quote: What none of us know is how many civilians worldwide will not be killed because we invaded Iraq.

We kinda know how many have been killed thus far, and we know future terrorist attacks will continue.

Not be killed is a red herring.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 07:54 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quote: What none of us know is how many civilians worldwide will not be killed because we invaded Iraq.

We kinda know how many have been killed thus far, and we know future terrorist attacks will continue.

Not be killed is a red herring.
Shocked
"red herring" Exclamation Question Rolling Eyes

"Not be killed", sir, is what the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions are fundamentally about. One doesn't defend oneself from being murdered after one is murdered. One does that before one is murdered so as to reduce the probability of one being murdered.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 08:27 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
I have yet to see evidence that, given the nature of the situation and the money supporting the insurgency, the struggle could not go on for quite some time.

How many times does Bush have to say it will go on for quite sometime before it registers on you that is exactly what Bush expects ... and is in deed what I expect.

I sometimes feel like the Righties believe that, after the election, things will settle down in Iraq as everything just starts working according to plan. That the spirit of democracy will grip the country, and the Sunnis will realize that they can achieve what they want by playing fair in the gov't and pressure the insurgents and AQ to leave; that the Shi'ites will cut the Sunnis and Kurds a fair deal, and not become allies of Iran; and that the US will be allowed to keep our military bases on Iraqi soil in perpetuity as we watch more and more American oil companies come into Iraq to develop the reserves.

Righties, as you call 'em, do not expect that everything will go according to plan after the December 15th elections. In our practical experience in solving problems and actually accomplishing things, we know nothing goes according to plan except updating one's plans frequently because of mistakes and/or failures. We do expect an improvement trend ... a measureable improvement trend too frequently interrupted by blunders, failures, and unanticipated things.

I wish you really understood that is what in this life is normally characteristic of the process of solving an extremely complex problem. Maybe it would help if you took a short course in problem solving appreciation, or...... perhaps Smile even learned to fly! But learning to fly may present you a very difficult psychological problem. Flying competently is not about avoidance or criticism of error. Error is a forgone conclusion in flying. What a competent pilot actually does is promptly detect and initiate the correction of his errors. Actually, life is like that too.

The real debate is over what is promptly enough to continue to make measureable progress.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 11:54 pm
ican wrote:
The real debate is over what is promptly enough to continue to make measureable progress.

The real debate also involves the definition of "measurable progress."
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 04:46 am
Ican has said it well.

James Q. Wilson wrote:

"Neoconservatism is an attitude that hold social reality to be complex and change difficult, If there is any article of faith common to almost every adherent, it is the law of Unintended Consequences. Things never work out quite as you hope: in particular, governmental programs often do not achieve their objectives or do achieve then with high or unexpected costs."
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 06:36 am
yea, well, if you don't plan well or know what you doing when you are flying a plane, you will crash and die. There was no plan for what to do after we took control of Iraq. We relied on rosy words of how grateful the Iraqis would be and everything would just fall into place.



Quote:
Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

* March 4, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

* March 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

* March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."



source
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 06:54 am
It is ridiculous to say there was "no plan". Anyone who has ever been in the military knows there is always a "plan". Now, it may not have been the best plan to put into operation at the time, so other plans have to be offered. That is why James Wilson wrote: Things never work out quite as you hope. If by the election in 2006, things are not going well in Iraq, the American voter may indeed show displeasure at the polls. However, if things are going well, then the GOP will win another election. Thus far they have won the following elections-

House and Senate--1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004

Presidential----------2000 and 2004
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 07:54 am
The plan was obviously just to invade Iraq and be greated as liberators with the oil paying for the cost of the rebuilding. It not a real plan if you don't plan for things going wrong ahead of time so that you don't have make it up as you along. They were warned of the things that could go wrong but ignored it.

Quote:
"In an ironic twist, the policy community was receptive to technical intelligence (the weapons program), where the analysis was wrong, but apparently paid little attention to intelligence on cultural and political issues (post-Saddam Iraq), where the analysis was right," they write.


source
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 08:39 am
For those of you who read German: The Sueddeutsche Zeitung, one of the leading German newspapers, has an interview with Khaled Al-Mazri, the man whom the CIA hijacked to Afghanistan.

The interview itself is here. Non-German-speakers can get a very rough translation by entering the interview's URL into Babelfish.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 11:03 am
Good grief, Thomas, one would have to want to know what this guy said awfully bad to go through the excruciating process of a Babel Fish translation Smile

The point here in the current conversation, however, is some sort of warped mentality of those who think the current administration is supposed to be sufficiently omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent to lay out and execute a plan for war with flawless precision, with no unexpected problems, and pinpoint the month, day, and hour that the terms of surrender will be signed.

Heaven help us if these people had been in charge in prior wars or might be in charge in the next one.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 11:13 am
"...omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent ..." Talk about exaggeration, but we all know Bush talks to god. Should we expect less?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 11:43 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Good grief, Thomas, one would have to want to know what this guy said awfully bad to go through the excruciating process of a Babel Fish translation Smile

On second thought, I came to the same conclusion, wrote a real translation, and posted it in a thread of its own.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=65007&highlight=
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 12:06 pm
Okay I read the translation, Thomas. Do you think this guy is telling it exactly like it is? Why do you think that? The last comment would suggest that his view could be a bit skewed given that both Democrats and Republicans returning from Guatanamo describe it as a luxurious Hilton compared to most detention facilities for that type of prisoner. He wouldn't be the first detainee or prisoner to claim that gross injustice has been done.

I would like to hear the other side before drawing a conclusion here.
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 0.05 seconds on 06/01/2025 at 02:43:34