The US, UN & Iraq III

Delighted to see the word "criminality" now in use. I think that's at the core of what's gone wrong, starting with the election itself (much as that belief aggravates). Hope Dean's words will be widely seen.

I note that David Brooks is joining the NYTimes op-ed roster. Ugh.

IMPEACH! c.i.

Here's a lovely piece on why we would be foolish to trust these fellows (administration)...
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8416

Between Craven's suggestion that its "possible that the anonymous tipster does not exist" and that, thus, the American soldiers never knew it was Uday and Qusay in there - and Blatham's opposing assertion that he has "no reason at all to trust a Pentagon claim they didn't know who was there" [emphasis mine], why else that kind of "amount of firepower" after all - I'm a bit confused.

What is this all about? It's possible enough to harmonise the different elements into the chronology of events as reported ... The initial raid of the house, with just the four Humvees, suggests the soldiers weren't aware (or convinced) of who they had inside, yet. At that time, too, they led the owner of the house & suggested tipster, Sheik Nawaf al-Zaydan, away to a safe place. The size of the reinforcements that then came in an hour later suggested they did know more, by then. At the very least that there were "big fish" inside, but very possibly also that it was the Husseins - which would make sense, considering how the report Ge' posted here yesterday already noted how al-Zaydan even told the neighbours by that time that he "got Odai, Qusai and big, big problems" in his house.

The only two things I'm stuck with, then, are Craven's point about there possibly not having been a tipster, at all (how so? He's identified and named by troops, neighbours and reporters, after all?), and Blatham's conclusion that if the Americans knew it was them inside and used that kind of firepower, "the mission was most likely assassination" (one doesnt necessarily prove the other, at all, see my post above for example - the overkill could just as well have been out of a panicked fear that they would get away again, for one).

IMPEACH! c.i.

whats your advice on travel in the middle-east, round now, c.i.?

News Flash.

Japanese parliament wrestles on the floor, before voting to send Japanese troops to Iraq.

Wish there were film at eleven!

http://www.msnbc.com/news/944148.asp?0dm=N18QN

(I'm not kidding. They were in a well-dressed pile on the floor.)

can we make Jesse Ventura ambassador to Japan?

I'd stay away from Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and maybe a few other places, but the rest should be okay. c.i.
I visited India when the embassy was bombed in Delhi, and to Nepal with the Maoist insurgency was rather active. I've traveled to Egypt and Jordan when others thought I was crazy to travel, but felt completely safe. In both Jordan and Egypt, we had police ride in our van most of the time. In Egypt, most of the hotels and major tourist sites had police. c.i.

Not at all Blatham. I'm in fine spirits, you simply dislike my post. I dislike knee-jerk (yes, knee-jerk) reactions. I dislike when bias goes that far and colors every happenstance. When conspiracy is seen behind every stone it undermines the real threats.

I can understand that you might dislike knee-jerk as an adjective, you probably prefer, 'well-thought', 'discerning' or some such. But that's exactly what I think it is, an instinctual reaction colored by a bias. It's not so much an argumentative opinion as it os one that is simply not as flattering as you might wish for.

The US made it quite plain when we attempted to assassinate those brothers before. Why does this time have to be a lie? Why assassinate instead of capture (you know how their deaths proved to be a boon for Bush and a timely distraction? Why not make that distraction last by catching live fish? People only stare at dead fish for so long).

Like nimh noted (filling in portions I had not yet read) this is something that to a large degree can be verified through independant sources.



Sigh, this is one of my pet peeves as far as rhetorical ploys go. People can see the same big picture and come to different conclusions. This argument is along the intellectual line of "if you had half a brain..."

These types of arguments have only rhetorical value in these cases. No, it's not a lack of experience or perspective that makes me have a different opinion. There are many people with more experience and perspective than any of us and many times those people disagree. It's a common argument here that there is a certain reason or criteria for thinking the way you think but that's intellectually bankrupt. It's a way of avoiding valid points and I tire of it. The "if you only open your eyes" type argument has no validity. Both can have eyes wide open, see the same thing and draw different conclusions. This type of argument is the lazy man's way. Instead of exploring the other side's argument they are simply wrong because of a lack of perspective or some other arbitrary criteria.

I don't disagree with blatham because of less perspective or experience. I simply disagree. Give a guy some credit for the ability to think. Each set of experiences and perspectives do not lead to a set answer. One could have the exact same perspective and experience and come to a different conclusion. Such is life.



I never said that this administration nor the military is not deserving of instictual mistrust. I simply think that instinctual anything leads to error and that this would be one of them.

The Pentagon has nothing to "cover" in terms of this story. If they'd liked they could have just called in an airstrike and very few (yes, it's sad) Americans would care. We tried to kill them in an assasination attempt a few weeks ago and the pentagon admitted to it. Why would this time require a coverup?



Thanks nimh, I had not yet read the details about the tipster. If that degree of detail has been documented it's quite likely that he exists. :wink:

He he, I watched the wrestle. Saw a lot of one lady's leg.

Last time around Japan was criticized for giving cash instead of bodies. If the Japanese engineers start dying this is going to become a very unpopular move over there.

I like the move. Brings diversity to the mix and is a step away from Japan's constitution (I'm all for Japan arming and building nukes and such).

nimh

I've just returned today from a week's vacation and haven't read all the information which you plot out as sequence...eg., I didn't know that the initial force was only 4 hummers, though I did read the story of the house owner's statement re who was inside and that he'd been taken for interview with the Americans. Having no compelling reason to assume the owner wouldn't advise the Americans that his guests were the fun-loving Hussein boys, I assumed he had. Of course it is possible that the commanders worried (as one military spokesperson said) that the boys might get away, but I personally doubt that is the whole story.

The US has a couple of problems here. What to do with the boys, or even more to the point, what to do with dad, or Osama, if they are captured alive? The world press and most governments will push for transparent court procedings, whether in Iraq or the Haque or elsewhere. I think it likely the US would not now want to acknowledge and validate the world court in such a manner, nor allow any of these four to have the public forum which would attend a trial. So, much simpler if they are just dead.

Second, what wonderous tales might Osama of Sadaam tell the world regarding their past relationships with the US? And by wonderous, I mean truthful.

Yep. One thing about Osama and Saddam. They never lie.

Craven, You know that old saying; "fool me once, fool me twice, fool me three times......." In my books, people have to earn trust by telling the truth from the very beginning. If they make a mistake, admit it was a mistake - before the media picks it up and makes it front page news for two weeks telling us how this administration had the info on the yellow cake from Niger. c.i.

craven

I'm not really all that needy for approval or agreement. There are very good historical reasons (recent or more distant as dys can attest to with personal knowledge) to not trust that Pentagon or defence spokespersons are speaking truthfully. That doesn't mean they are always lying, it simply means one notes what they say and grants it the credence due - not much. Jessica Lynch seems an appropriate example.

ci,

Roger uses a quote that is deeply insightful.

"even a clock that's stopped is right twice a day"

Again, I am quite critical of this administration and I do not think they made a mistake in the deaths of the Husseins. Because of this I do not think that they are lying. After all, the lie would be to "cover up" something that needs no cover up.

The American people would ahve accepted an arbitrary assasination. Had a huge airstrike been called in even without ground troops being fired at there would be little uproar and little need to "cover up".

blatham,

I am DEEPLY critical of what comes out of military mouths. They have whole fields dedicated to "news management" and misinformation.

I simply do not think this is the case in this very specific instance.

In the Lynch case I do believe there was intentional "news management". In fact I believe it to have been one of the most audacious and deftly performed such instances in modern warefare.

sofia

Well, outside of the black PR attendent upon the two campaigns, do you have some examples of information falsification by either Sadaam or Osama which is of a sort or of a frequency such that no camparison might be made to US behavior? We can call them bad guys or evil guys or terrorists, but that's really a pretty imprecise way to measure truth-telling.

craven

I'm not at all sure that you have this right. Public response to the initial missle attack the day before the war began might not be comparable to public response right now, and I don't think it is. They are walking on eggshells now in a manner that wasn't so back then. And, back then, you'll recall that they took a while to tell us that an assassination attempt had been made, of course using Clint Eastwood euphemisms such as 'take out'.

I agree that the public response would be far different. Back then, to nail saddam in the first shot would have been so startling that even some of the peacecamp would have liked it.

I agree that the situation is different now, I just don't see how an assasination of these two would have generated bad publicity.

The American public would largely cheer. A few would ask why they were not apprehended for the purpose of intel, but otherwise few would care.

But this is moot.

After reading nimh's posts I read up on it, and there is enough detail in this story to make speculation about the veracity an excersise in futility.