0
   

The US, UN & Iraq III

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 05:31 am
Those 'pre election WMD discoveries' won't be delvered til about a week before the election ......
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 06:06 am
Bush's overall poll ratings as of yesterday (in a multipart poll) shows that he's at 50% vs. 35% for "a Democratic candidate." 50% for a sitting president, "Commander in Chief in the war against terror," vs. 35% for an unknown candidate before the campaign has begun? Is that bad?
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 06:14 am
True, Mysteryman - but the USMC managed to find a 10s of millions in greenbacks and a reported $1b in gold. Let's say these items are a little more compact than a weapons program.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 06:17 am
Meanwhile at the front .......

From an Iraqi blogger



get rid of this ad | advertise here
G.

G. in baghdad
Sunday, June 08, 2003
Monday 6-2-2003
it was the first day of a "weapons controlling program" the Americans decided to do a sweep on one of the poor neighborhoods on the south tip of Baghdad, they rounded an area of 3500-4000 houses using a force of over than 400 men of the 82nd airborne division.
they did house to house search for weapons and guess how they were doing it ?
they divided themselves into squads of 30 men with one translator for every squad or at least the peopel i was with had one -we will speak about him later-they would go into the street start with the first house, knock at the door politely telling the peopel of the house that they r here to search for weapons asking them if they have any, and trying to explain for them that its allowed to keep only 2 pieces of arms ( a klashnikove and a pistol ),
then they would wait for a few moments while the women move to a different part of the house, the soldiers would go into the house usually two or three working there way very gently through the chickens, pots, boxes, children and bundles of blankets. they would ask the family member accompanying them to open the bedroom wardrops or any locked boxes shying away from the women and making sure they dont look at them.
to cut the story short they were professionals genteel and culturally sensitive.
so in the end of the day every one was happy, the Americans who did there job easily (apart from the hundreds of thousands kids chasing them), the Iraqis who were allowed to keep 2 pieces of arms which is more than the need of a normal household and they were treated extremely nice, it was a perfect day, or was it ?
of course it wasn't the iraqi who would smile to the America soldier standing at his door step or bending under the bed searching for grenades between dirty towels and underwear's would let the Bedouin inside him indulge immediately after that in a series of accusations of atrocities committed against his honor, religion and his poor little chickens.
why is that when something started as a perfect lesson in cultural understanding it ended in a boiling tense situation were the translator had to shout every 5 seconds the justifications of the American invasion of Iraq and how good it feels when a group of armed strangers from another part of the world who u have never met -apart from being "infidels" who never wash after going to the toilet -would come and search ur house.
i think its an old case as old as Babylon and its called communication, for some reason Allah decided to do his linguistic homework, hokus-pokus and there u go: languages everywhere. 5000 years after that it was up to a short man covered up to his ears with military gadget to save the world.
in the beginning he was doing a very good job explaining to the locals what they should and what they shouldn't do in a half complicit way using the Arabic codes of winking whispering and arm rubbing. at one point he even used the neighborhood kids as gospels spreading the word of god to the 4 directions, it started to get wrong when the people discovered that he is actually an iraqi collaborating with occupation forces "why do u allow them to come here and dishonor ure country" said one of the young men, as if the poor guy had control on anything.
so after 8 long hours.....
the Americans left, confiscating 6 antiaircraft heavy machine gun bullets form over than 40 houses.
the Iraqis were furiously talking of Americans searching our women, confiscating our protection weapons, and stealing our poor little chickens.

// posted by G @ 12:24 AM

Links

* [email protected]
* Edit-Me
* Edit-Me

ARCHIVES

* 06/01/2003 - 06/30/2003
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 06:45 am
It's a wonderful account, isn't it!

Fastened onto that "never wash after going to the toilet," Gautam -- this was one of the things which startled me in "hygenic" America when I first returned!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 07:02 am
And lies and more lies...

Quote:
Captives Deny Qaeda Worked With Baghdad
by James Risen
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 07:21 am
Joe Nation wrote:

Oh and yeah, MM, Saddam used that gas on his own people, though I don't think you were there to see that. And after he did that do you know what we did? Ronald Reagan recognized Saddam's government and established an embassy in Iraq, then he sent Don Rumsfeld there to arrange for Saddam to get anthrax, purely for research in animal diseases -yuh.
Joe


Evidently there are some here who believe there is a conspiracy to taint our hamburger meat who also doubt that Saddam actually gassed several Kurdish villages after the Gulf war, killing thousands. Curious.

By the way Bill Clinton was president when the gas attacks occurred, not Ronald Reagan. In addition, our regognition of Iraq and embassy there were in place more than fifty years ago. Try to get your facts right.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 07:41 am
Quote:
The people that complained about logging and the spotted owl were found to be wrong,


mm

I live in the Pacific Northwest. What on earth are you talking about here?

Joe Nation's post (very well done JN) points to precisely the sort of corporate PR disinformation programs, hugely funded, which seek to put your 'wolf' label on anyone who speaks up against a product or the means by which the product is produced or harvested. And increasingly, mass media (generally) is falling into step with the dollars, and doing shallower reportage (eg when Bjorn Lomborg came to town last year, the local papers here had multiple pages of interviews with him, and there was no mention of the fact that the three most respected science journals - Science, Nature, Scientific American - had each felt it necessary to produce SPECIAL issues devoded to the singular purpose of pointing out how wrong Lomborg had his science on the matter).
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 07:44 am
Clinton was President on March 16, 1988?????
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 08:00 am
Thanks, Blatham. I was preparing to have a fit and am grateful for your temperate, accurate response.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 08:01 am
And that reminds me: There's truth and then there's Limbaugh.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 08:06 am
george

Best do a better apology here than O'Reilly's.

And look....re the gassing of Kurds...it really isn't a bit of data that you ought to be forwarding. It was far too long ago to be any proper justification for attacking Iraq because it just points out the lie of 'imminent danger' that the administration said was real. Further, it doesn't even work as a 'see how evil he is' because we know that Rummy has there shaking hands with him in full knowledge of what he was doing.

I love being in America. I love American people one meets when one is there. But I hate the really ugly things that America has done, as is doing, in the world.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 08:08 am
Krugman, today: "Yet dishonest salesmanship has been the hallmark of the Bush administration's approach to domestic policy. And it has become increasingly clear that the selling of the war with Iraq was no different."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/10/opinion/10KRUG.html
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 08:26 am
Powell...what's going on with this man? lauded as the voice of reason, the only voice of reason, within the Bush cabal and then we get the UN presentation of bull followed by what? Has the Secretary of State become the apologist for Bush? His current denials of mis-stating immedate danger WoMD poised for nuklear holocaust of western civilization seem to be attached via leash to the Cheney porch? People want to know...
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 08:52 am
blatham wrote:
george

Best do a better apology here than O'Reilly's.

And look....re the gassing of Kurds...it really isn't a bit of data that you ought to be forwarding. It was far too long ago to be any proper justification for attacking Iraq because it just points out the lie of 'imminent danger' that the administration said was real. Further, it doesn't even work as a 'see how evil he is' because we know that Rummy has there shaking hands with him in full knowledge of what he was doing.


My post was directed at Joe Nation's screed in which he claimed that after the gassing of the Kurds Ronald Reagan went ahead and recognized Iraq. It represented a rather compact concentration of error and misstatements of fact, and I merely pointed that out. (We had a "word" in the Navy for people who got things wrong often. It was "WEFT".)

I did not attempt to use the gassing to rationalize the Iraqi intervention, 'tho I do believe that this act on his part did indeed contribute to the mosaic that supported the judgement that Saddam had to go.

As for Rumsfeld's visit, I note that the U.S. (and even Canada and many other countries) have long maintained relations with detestable regimes, most notably the former Soviet Union. Given the then ongoing struggle between Iraq and Iran it is beyond doubt that the U.S. had ample legitimate interest in influencing events there as we could.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 10:23 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Given the then ongoing struggle between Iraq and Iran it is beyond doubt that the U.S. had ample legitimate interest in influencing events there as we could.


It is certainly beyond doubt that the Reagan administration was willing to be a bedfellow of the vile Hussein in the fanatical rush to "get" Iran. It is by no means a given that we had any proximate interest in supporting the Iraqis in that war--that the United States did so says a good deal more about the nature of the Reagan adminstration's foreign policy than it does about realpolitik. That was a deliberate choice based upon a policy having nothing to do with national security.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 10:49 am
Set, If truth be told, what Bush did to Iraq had very little to do with "national security." c.i.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 10:57 am
For those interested in the intelligence, military points of view, experiences of the military as peacekeepers in Iraq, morale among the soldiers, their experiences with the civilians, politics in the Pentagon, Rummy, etc. etc., Tom Ricks of the Washington Post is being interviewed on Fresh Air (NPR) today -- pretty good interview, from what I heard. Ricks has spent some time there and while not apparently being embedded is clearly friendly with the commanders though independent in his judgments. See what you think!
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 12:07 pm
And I understand that Bush is not now referring to weapons of mass destruction - the preferred language is programs of weapons. But the whole picture emerging is of squirming in any direction to get out of the corner they painted themselves in. So far, there are interesting developments in the land we liberated. Iraqi oil production is way down because of various factors - continued looting and little security at the oil fields, and a lack of intelligence about what actually went on with the oil under Hussein. Apparently there was over production in order to meet sales requirements. Oil production at the capacity the WH said will not be available for a long time, so the enrichment programs for both the Iraqis and the Bush people will be delayed.

And Powell is meeting resistance in South America. The OAS does not see eye-to eye with him regarding Cuba.

Does it seem like the further we go, the faster we lose friends and allies? Does anyone see the anomaly between declaring Poland a strong part of the New Europe, and Poland wanting to be part of the Old Europe - the EU?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2003 12:11 pm
Instant linkage mama!
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US, UN & Iraq III
  3. » Page 124
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/24/2025 at 09:14:46