The US, UN & Iraq III

One of the major signs that they are in trouble is that they are getting the same questions over and over again, not accepting the usual BS!

Tartarin
Add robbery and murder. Because the big bad Americans are there. The fact remains many of the problems you allude to are caused by they same people that complain about lack of services and security.

Walter
My comment about Saddam was tongue in cheek.

Okay. (Early morning -now- here. So I'm a little bit tired.) :wink:

"The fact remains many of the problems you allude to are caused by they same people that complain about lack of services and security." How do you know that, Au?

YES BILL!! Bush BS seems to be fading from fashion. Keep eyes open for new forms of BS, such as sending Powell in to defend the use of the uranium statement in the SOTU address...

Tartarin
It has been reported time and time again. Do you filter it out because you refuse to hear anything but negativity about the US. Sorry, planning for post fighting by the brain trust in Washington has been seriously lacking,Nevertheless the Iraqi's are not helping and are indeed exacerbating the problems

Tartarin
Aid groups in Iraq also under attack

By Kevin Begos | Special to The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD – American troops are bearing the brunt of the daily attacks in central Iraq, with two more soldiers killed Thursday. But international aid groups are also being targeted - undercutting their humanitarian efforts, and causing them to question the close working relationship many have developed with US forces. In Baghdad, the World Food Program (WFP) expressed alarm Thursday over the rise in shootings, looting, and attacks on trucks bringing food into the country over the past month. It said security at storage facilities is still a major concern.

Complete article
http://csmonitor.com/2003/0711/p01s03-woiq.html

Here's another goodie from a report on NPR this afternoon. American businessmen looking for possibilities in Iraq have not been allowed visas. Too much competition for Halliburton?

from slate

Question: With all the stuff coming out now, there'a question I haven't seen asked. Among the many things Colin Powell and others of that club said, prominent was the mention of 600 odd sites they said they KNEW about that were connected with WMD. At the time, it was asked why, if they had this information, they didn't pass it on to the UN inspectors. No answer. But I haven't seen the question raised since. Were there all those sites? Shouldn't Powell be asked about them?

Anther thing. Lots of jokes about Bush and his job and education resumes, but this may be the longest he's held a job. And he is an argument against MBAs (if he ever got one). Bush is looking more and more of a loser, but what could the republicans do? They're stuck with him. And, because they've never allowed any outsiders, how could they do without Cheney, Rummy, Perle and the rest? Unless everybody resigned to spend time with his family, it would be an admission of failure.

What's nice about all of this is that the republicans are doing this to themselves. They don't need any help. But help we must. The information has begun to flow like a river, and it seems that people are no longer reluctant to put their names to statements, which is telling in itself.

Exactly mamaj - they said they couldn't tell Blix about them because they were too secret and would reveal contacts - why didn't they go directly to these secret spots as the war unfolds and voila - instead, we see them going to oil wells - hmmmmmmmmmmm.

So it was all about oil afterall!

Oh, they gave several reasons for not passing the information on the the UN inspectors. The one about fearing leaks to the Saddam Hussein government is getting a little thin right now.

To my mind, this is the single most important question. I could and did support an invasion based on a threat to my own country. I may or may not have supported it if the basis were human rights abuse, but that was never really one of the terms of the debate. This not a question to be answered in hindsight.

But Bill - only one oil well had what remotely passed for guards. So - were they expecting maybe a little cooperation that wasn't there?

I was against a preemptive attack on Iraq, and wrote to Congresswoman Diane Feinstein. She wrote back and told me/us that with the intelligence she had available, she had to support the president's war with Iraq. I told Congresswoman Feinstein that I trusted her judgement, and would support any decision she made. However, with our 20/20 hinde sight, I'm truly aghast at the justification this president and his henchment, especially Colin Powell, used to the preemptive attack on Iraq, because none of it is panning out as claimed. c.i.

c.i. Hello again, I have been traveling, but do get the news. Still no WMD, No Osama, No Uranium???? Hmmm... OIL!!! I belive I am in the same "boat" as you. Unfortunately everyone wants to hide... they would prefer to not stand up and say hey... this is WRONG!! So, Franks says four more years in Iraq? Maybe? At this rate the average of 3 soldiers killed per day times 365 times 4 and... hey, we don't need anymore troops over there, 150,000 is enough. What a flipping mess.

Was and remains to be! But it wasn't his idea, Bush has the intellect of a flea ... hell he couldn't find oil in Texas ... remember 'elbusto'?

Aristocracy is to blame, Pete and Re-Pete .... let's hope that twice is enough as it would seem that Bush politicians attract a truly unsavory crowd.

It is also proving that the "Intelligence" Bush did get is false. All the press seems to be forgeting the special CIA (sic) unit Rumps setup to advise and consent (haha) to his beaconing!

Then there is the super secret Cheney connection. The State Department officials (I think Wilson is one of them) says they directly advised the unVP, who of course say he knows nothing - liar.

Rice and Colin are guilty of telling half truths, actually, this regime is guilty of telling 1% truths - I think half truths would be acceptable (not)!

So Bush and Rice said today that the CIA cleared Bush's State of the Union speech?

Well, have a look at this Ausstralian paper:

What has Bush wrought, lies, deceit, economic collapse, enmity of the entire world, death and destruction, loss of civil liberties? And yet he still has his supporters. How is that possible?

CI -- You make a great point there, mentioning your contact with Feinstein. The anger Congress is feeling -- including many Republicans who may be feeling even greater disappointment and anger -- is something I haven't seen much mention of here and will certainly have weight.

Franks' "four more years" is such an interesting number. Enough years for what? Not three, not five, but a presidential term.

That sucking feeling you feel is -

Besides, we all no that the highly placed and important Australian need to know is much higher than the third rate USA power