0
   

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

 
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 12:37 pm
blatham wrote:
bethie

Some of us have been arguing since months before the war began that permanent bases in Iraq were a fundamental intention of this enterprise.


That, and the OIL! Don't forget the oil Smile

<Now, where in blazes is that dang tanker?>
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 12:38 pm
blatham, Isn't is amazing that most people buy the rhetoric coming out from this administration that we'll leave as soon as they tell us to? We're building the largest embassy in Iraq, and about a half dozen or so military bases to we can "leave" when asked to do so. Shows how smart the American People are.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 01:01 pm
*edit*

The miltary bases... good strategic move. Also, wasn't it 12 bases that were going to be built? I know I remember someone of the liberal persuasion going on about that in the past.

Finally, did you guys happen to catch the last paragraph that says "A source at the Iraqi defence ministry said: "We expect these facilities will ultimately be to the benefit of the domestic forces, to be handed over when the US leaves.""?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 01:40 pm
I wonder what else has been 'expected.' We 'expected' to be done with the whole place long ago, we 'expected' the fighting to die down quickly....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 01:44 pm
Yeah, we're building new bases in Iraq while we close the ones in the US. If any American wants a job, just go to Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 01:47 pm
McGentrix wrote:
We are not "building" the largest embassy, we are converting an existing structure that happens to be very large.


So all the reports about a request is for $658 million to build the world's largest embassy, the fortress-like Baghdad super-bunker embassy are wrong and it has been there for decades?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 02:18 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
We are not "building" the largest embassy, we are converting an existing structure that happens to be very large.


So all the reports about a request is for $658 million to build the world's largest embassy, the fortress-like Baghdad super-bunker embassy are wrong and it has been there for decades?


Last I had read, they were going to fortify the palace they were in. Did not know those plans had changed.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 02:23 pm
"Last I had read..." That's very funny. It's really easy to find what's happened, and what's going on with the US Embassy in Iraq. I've highlighted some of the article so you won't miss it.


"Published on Thursday, July 8, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
New US Embassy, Baghdad: Mother of All Dead Time Factories?
by John Brown

"The embassy is going to have a thousand people hunkered behind sandbags. I don't know how you can conduct diplomacy in that way."
- Edward L. Peck, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq from 1977 to 1980; cited in Boston Globe, June 26, 2004

One of the better known secrets of the Foreign Service is the amount of dead time imposed on its officers. Dead time waiting for congressional delegations to arrive at the airport. Dead time attending overlong meetings to coordinate embassy activities. Dead time handling the advance teams sent to posts by the White House to arrange for presidential visits. Dead time dealing with a ludicrously complicated personnel system in Washington.

Lots and lots of dead time which keeps Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) from doing what the taxpayer pays them to do while abroad: look out for American interests, observe the society around them, keep in touch with its most important elements, provide fresh information and new ideas with which policy can be formulated, and negotiate with the host government on bilateral or multilateral issues.

True, FSOs in the administrative "cone" of the State Department focus on internal embassy management and personnel matters. But their work aims to abolish dead time, not expand it. In Baghdad, they're facing an uphill battle to control this grave impediment to foreign service work -- as are their colleagues in the political, economic, consular and public diplomacy cones.

Based on over twenty years of experience in the Foreign Service, I see several reasons why the American mission in Baghdad -- which will cost in 2005 up to $1 billion to operate, not including the construction of a new embassy -- will create a dead time environment that will complicate if not denigrate the work of the 140 Foreign Service Officers assigned to it by the end of the year.

First, take the sheer size of the Embassy. It will have a staff of 1,500, including over 500 Iraqis designated as Foreign Service Nationals (FSN). Such a large number of people -- more than half civil servants -- will inevitably demand enormous personnel coordination and organization. With so many bodies around, it'll be difficult to determine exactly who does what, and an inordinate amount of dead time will be spent deciding upon assignments and responsibilities. Even Ambassador Francis Ricciardone, who set up the Baghdad embassy, acknowledges "there are technical problems, issues of different management cultures, different ways of keeping records and communicating and doing money and assigning people," while diplomatically stating that "the two lead agencies -- Defense and State -- have been really partnering.wonderfully." (Federal Times, June 28)."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 02:24 pm
It had passed Senate in April, if I remember correctly.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 02:44 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
We are not "building" the largest embassy, we are converting an existing structure that happens to be very large.


So all the reports about a request is for $658 million to build the world’s largest embassy, the fortress-like Baghdad super-bunker embassy are wrong and it has been there for decades?


My concerns about many here and elsewhere do not relate to my perceptions of their feelings about Bush and his administration. My concerns relate to what appears to me to be their excessive focus on Bush and his administration's alleged and demonstrated errors and bungles and blunders, and too little focus on the real threat to Americans and others. That real threat consists of the AQ's (i.e., al Qaeda's) accelerating mass murders of civilians. Since AQ's inception in August 1988, in its original Afghan jihad against the Russians, it has grown rapidly in size and in total number of murders. AQ's growth did not begin its rapid growth only after our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. That growth began in 1988.

That growth rate was facilitated by among other things those governments that tolerated and did not resist AQ occupying bases and camps in their countries. To end that growth rate and end AQ, the US must, among other things, ultimately remove those governments that tolerate and do not resist AQ occupying bases and camps in their countries.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 02:49 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
"Last I had read..." That's very funny. It's really easy to find what's happened, and what's going on with the US Embassy in Iraq. I've highlighted some of the article so you won't miss it.


"Published on Thursday, July 8, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
...


Sorry ... you lost me at the commondreams.org reference.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 03:56 pm
The following link provides the best analysis of the facts of the run-up to the war given the revelations of the Downing Street memo.

Save this in on your hard drive or on paper as it will go behind the 'pay for' wall soon.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 06:06 pm
blatham wrote:
The following link provides the best analysis of the facts of the run-up to the war given the revelations of the Downing Street memo.
Save this in on your hard drive or on paper as it will go behind the 'pay for' wall soon.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034


I assume that much of this article, "The Secret Way to War", is valid. I have assumed for a very long time that the key allegations in this article are true. I among many others have from the day of the start of the invasion of Iraq had come to the conclusion that these allegations, while valid, are nonetheless irrelevant to the question of whether or not the US and Britain should have invaded Iraq. In plain words, these allegations are a "red herring." My argument to support this assertion has been posted here many times. Here it is again.

LEST YE FORGET

ican711nm wrote:
THE GENERAL ARGUMENT

Al Qaeda was/is a self declared agressor against the US. The governments in whose countries al Qaeda was/is based are accomplices to this agressor. It is al Qaeda and the governments in whose countries al Qaeda was/is based that must be stopped in our own self-defense.

Nothing the Bush&Adm or the Blair&Adm intended or didn’t intend, said or didn’t say, conspired or didn't conspire, or otherwise did or didn’t do can change these facts. The truth of the existence or non-existence of ready-to-use "WMD" in Iraq, or of a "link" between Iraq and al Qaeda cannot change these facts.

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


Foxfyre wrote:
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.
...


ican711nm wrote:
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.


9/11 Commission wrote:
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.


9/11 Commission wrote:
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, i.e., The 9-11 Commission Report alleged, 8/21/2004 in CHAPTERS 10.0, 10.2: 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.


ican711nm wrote:
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.

THE BASIC ARGUMENT

1. 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. [Reference A, G]

2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]

3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]

4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan.

5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan. [Reference A]

6. Terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in December 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier, and after we invaded Afghanistan in October 2001.[References A, B, C, D, F]

7. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq. [References A, B, D, E, F]

8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

9. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

10. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.

REFERENCES

A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
NEW LINK:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com

D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

F. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org

G. Osama Bin Laden “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places”-1996, and, Osama Bin Laden: Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans-1998
(scroll down to find them both)
http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 08:31 pm
T
Quote:
he following link provides the best analysis of the facts of the run-up to the war given the revelations of the Downing Street memo.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 10:15 pm
Kara,
Jim Lehrer on PBS' news tonight had a segment on Iran. The situation does not look good at all.

I find the piece by "The Economist" to be overly optimistic in what they imply is possible, even though it is conceded to be extremely difficult and/or risky.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 12:51 am
Not really politics (or may be: cerainly politics?):



Quote:
At least 8,000 treasures looted from Iraq museum still untraced

By Louise Jury, Arts Correspondent
24 May 2005


Evidence of how quickly and irretrievably a country can be stripped of its cultural heritage came with the Iraq war in 2003.

The latest figures, presented to the art crime conference yesterday by John Curtis of the British Museum, suggested that half of the 40 iconic items from the Iraq National Museum in Baghdad still had not been retrieved. And of at least 15,000 items looted from its storerooms, about 8,000 have yet to be traced.

About 4,000 of the objects taken from the museum had been recovered in Iraq. But illustrating the international demand for such antiquities, Dr Curtis said around 1,000 had been confiscated in the US, 500 pieces had been impounded in France, 250 in Switzerland and 200 or so in Jordan.

Other artefacts have been retrieved from surrounding countries such as Syria, Kuwait, Iran and Turkey. None of these objects has yet been sent back to Iraq.

Other items had been destroyed or stolen from enormously important archaeological sites such as those at Nimrud and Babylon. "Some of them resemble minefields there are so many holes," Dr Curtis said.

Random checks on Western soldiers leaving the area had found some in illegal possession of ancient artefacts.

But he said: "I don't think large numbers of antiquities from these sites have been passing through London. I'm not aware of large amounts being in the salerooms in London."

The full extent of the damage has been impossible to gauge so far because of the deteriorating security situation.

The director of the Iraq National Museum has been forced to seal his storerooms because it is currently too dangerous for his staff to start work on an inventory of the material that has been returned.

An international mission planned under the auspices of Unesco, the United Nations' cultural organisation, with advice from experts at the British Museum, has been unable to start work for similar reasons.

The delays all make it more likely that material will continue to be lost from the country's archaeological sites, some of which have been permanently damaged by war.

Two years ago, the BBC documentary-maker and historian Dan Cruickshank suggested that museum staff had been involved in, or permitted, the looting . But Dr Curtis said he thought staff had nothing to do with the thefts. There was confusion, he said, because museum staff had emptied cases of transportable goods and hidden them in secret storerooms before war broke out.

A spokesman for the London market said everyone in Britain was acutely aware of the dangers of buying goods from Iraq and there were very strong deterrents. The Cultural Objects (Offences) Act of 2003 meant anyone trading in illicit objects facedup to seven years in jail.
Source
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 05:58 am
Quote:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 06:10 am
Ah, Ges, that was wonderful . . . here is one of the humiliating observations:

One of the historians interviewed wrote:
(In a comparison to President Warren Harding) "Oil, money and politics again combine in ways not flattering to the integrity of the office. Both men also have a tendency to mangle the English language yet get their points across to ordinary Americans. [Yet] the comparison does Harding something of a disservice." (emphasis added)


. . . i literally howled with laughter . . . indeed, what a slur upon the unfortunate Harding--who could, at least, have blamed his wife.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 07:26 am
When I posted it I thought you might appreciate it Very Happy
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 10:16 am
Kara wrote:
... The Downing Street memo leads into everything that is happening today. We look back two years and see that what the US did triangulated the Axis of Evil. Iran and North Korea saw that the US knew that Iraq did not have nukes so we attacked them. Aha. If one has nukes, one is not attacked.


The Economist on May 12th 2005 wrote:
Iran and North Korea Return of the axis of evil ...

In the end, there may be no way to persuade countries that are sufficiently paranoid to forgo nuclear weapons. But Iran needs access to world markets—not least in Europe—to provide jobs for a fast-growing population that has fallen out of love with the Islamic revolution, and a pauperised North Korea depends on China for almost all its energy. If these regimes faced credible economic threats at the same time as being offered the right sort of security assurances by the United States, the nuclear genie might yet be pushed back into the bottle. But this will take unity, co-ordination and statecraft of a kind the world has not seen for many years. And time is running out.


Five reasons were given by Bush&Adm on 2/5/2003 for invading Iraq on 3/20/2003:
1. Iraq's Saddam Regime possessed ready-to-use WMD;
2. Iraq's Saddam Regime became host to al Qaeda December 2001, two months after the US invaded Afghanistan;
3. Iraq's Saddam Regime had built thousands of ordnance depots;
4. Iraq's Saddam Regime was planing to continue development of WMD after UN sanctions were lifted;
5. Iraq's Saddam Regime was murdering Iraqis at the rate of thousands per year.

Reason 1 was shown to be false after 3/20/2003.
Reasons 2, 3, 4, and 5 were confirmed true after 3/20/2003.

Reasons 2, 3, 4, and 5 are more than sufficient justification for US's and Britain's invasion of Iraq.
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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/05/2024 at 08:30:36