0
   

The US, UN & Iraq III

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2003 05:33 am
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2003 06:11 am
a
From a Baghdad blog


So we have a government at last…. and what a government a twenty five heads amebic Governing Council
"Habibi we are like a drowned man, we will grab the first piece of **** flouting on the water" Ali Muhssin, 35, taxi driver " I m not a very sophisticated man you know, I m a very poor man but I can understand very well that an Iraqi GOVERMENT will solve lots of issues. By the way habibi how come we still have power cuts? I thought the day we have a PRESIDENT everything will go back to normal!!
That's another issue for the Iraqis after almost half a century of the rule of
"the Leader the necessity" Iraqis are so confused, what is a governing council ?
Is it a government?
No.
A parliament?
No.
A cabinet of ministers?
No.
Is it a 25 heads president?
Well hmmm it could be but no. so what the **** is it !!! My son asked me yesterday is it true daddy that now instead of one picture of Saddam in my class ill have the whole set of 25 pictures?
Imagine the chaos 25 big mural in every street corner with 25 set of statues in the main plazas. God help ambassador Bremer, even Jesus had to deal with only 12.
If I could summarize the Iraqi reaction in a very mechanical unpoetic way it is:
-Oh they don't represent us they are foreigners
-I don't believe they could achieve any thing the Americans will always have the final say
-Hey when will they fix the electricity and you know I don't mind voting for a shiat-and or a sunny depends on your settings, shiat mode or a sunny mode- as long as he will help my people.

Again provide jobs, electricity, security and Iraqis will vote to elect you president for life
That's not true you know
Now there is something else. Of coarse not as important as electricity but as good as most of the Iraqis will tell you, It's the "mukhabarat free society", no more security thugs with ugly faces demanding to see your ID, your history and your mothers love letters- well of coarse apart from those hanging around the head quarters of Chalabis, Allawies and the king to be

God I swear INC/SCIRI/INA/ are different from the baathist thugs only in there names
You go to the headquarters of Chalabi and all you see is a bunch of kids and men armed to the teeth, pure thugs -Saddam thugs but in a different form. Why would I exchange one tyrant with another?
Unlike what al-Jazeera says I think Iraqis gained something form the Americans.
We got some amebic concept, some call it freedom others call it chaos,
I call it a fuzzy dream of democracy.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 04:51 am
a
U.S. SAUDI SCANDAL

DID FBI CALL OFF PROBE OF SAUDIS TO PROTECT OIL TIES?

BY ALEX ROSLIN

observers have spilled a lot of ink lately on the delicate positioning of the Saudi regime as it tries to harmonize its support for the U.S. war with its tolerance for extremism on its own soil. Generally accepted, too, is the idea that the monarchy boosted al Qaeda through its funding of the Wahhabi movement, a militant Islamist sect.But a book written by two French intelligence experts, published by Denoel Press and not yet available in North America, takes the story further. Ben Laden: La Vérité Interdite (Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth) says the FBI was hamstrung prior to September 11 not only because U.S. officials were unwilling to make an issue of al Qaeda's connections to wealthy Saudis, but also because the U.S. didn't want to disrupt talks with the Taliban over building an oil pipeline to Central Asia.

Starting in the mid 90s, the book says, the U.S. made clumsy attempts to bribe the Taliban while at the same time threatening them with military action if they didn't make a deal. The U.S. repeatedly demanded bin Laden's extradition, not realizing until too late that the Taliban were joined at the hip to their Saudi millionaire guest.

The blundering and cynical U.S. diplomatic scheme may actually have set the stage for September 11, says co-author Jean-Claude Brisard in an interview from Paris. Talks finally collapsed in late August, and the Trade towers attack may have been bin Laden's pre-emptive response, he says. "The State Department diverged considerably from the FBI's investigators. The U.S. negotiated with the Taliban despite (their) brutality because the important thing for the U.S. was oil."

It's a thesis that certainly resonates with other intelligence experts. "You had an American pro-Taliban faction (inside the U.S. government). They were totally in bed with the Taliban," says the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center's Wayne Madsen, who used to work for the U.S. National Security Agency.

Abdul Raheem Yaseer, assistant director of the University of Nebraska's centre for Afghanistan studies, believes the Saudi tie helped stymie FBI investigations of bin Laden. "The U.S.'s activities were slowed because of our relationship with the Saudis,'' he says. It was clear to the U.S., he says, that the Wahhabis are a key pillar of support for the Saudi monarchy and that the unpopular regime would be undermined by a strong FBI probe.

Even after bin Laden turned his wrath on the U.S. in the 1990s, he maintained close contact with key Saudi figures including Prince Turki al-Faisal, the powerful intelligence chief and brother of King Fahd. "If you're going to go after terrorism, you have to go after the Saudis,'' says Brisard, who wrote a report on bin Laden's finances for a French intelligence agency.

The book also reveals that a former top FBI counterterrorism official who was killed in the World Trade Center attack had complained bitterly about how U.S. oil politics had shut down FBI investigations. The former official, John O'Neill, resigned in protest as head of the FBI's national security division in August and was hired as chief of security at the twin towers. "All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia," O'Neill is quoted as saying in the book. Agents trying to probe last year's bombing of the USS Cole constantly knocked heads with the U.S. State Department, which ended up barring O'Neill, the head of the investigation, from entering Yemen. Brisard says O'Neill told him about the problems last June and July. "He was profoundly frustrated with the situation."

The book's thesis was also advanced independently in a report on BBC-TV's investigative show Newsnight in early November. "(The U.S. Department of) State wanted to keep the pro-American Saudi royal family in control of the world's biggest oil spigot, even at the price of turning a blind eye to any terrorist connection,'' it reported.

The show asked whether September 11 could have been prevented if the FBI had been allowed to do its job. As it happened, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, mostly from wealthy families.

"(FBI investigators) were pursuing these matters, but were told to back off," said David Armstrong, an intelligence expert at the Washington, D.C.-based Public Education Center, a nonprofit investigative organization that helped the BBC research its report.

Boston University international relations professor Adim Najamat, who has studied Saudi politics, says the notion of an FBI retreat from investigations does seem plausible given the regime's precariousness. "Bin Laden seems to have a big following in Saudi Arabia. It is quite clear that the Saudi government is playing a game for its life. The irony is, bin Laden might get what he wants due to U.S. actions in Afghanistan," he says.

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2001-11-22/news_story3.html

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2001-11-22/news_story3-1.jpg
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 08:35 am
Ge, did you read this one about Saudi Arabia and the US?

Atlantic Unbound | May 29, 2003
 
Addicted to Oil

Robert Baer, a former CIA agent and the author of "The Fall of the House of Saud" (May Atlantic), discusses the perils of our dependence on Saudi Arabia and its precious supply of fuel



Quote:


Read the whole article:

House of Saud
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 09:21 am
a
Thanks Kara..... this conjures a vision of the world being held hostage by the greed of a few mad men that are willing to pursue power to the complete demise of those that are the very source of their power.

Here is a Baghdad blog that is worth a read.

http://geeinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2003 09:34 pm
Ge, interesting blog. But who is the writer? I am sure that what he is writing, in an enlightened way, about woman lawyers, and the patriarchal society, and all of that, is surely not a common viewpoint in that land. It would be instructive to know what men on the ground would say about female lawyers.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2003 05:53 am
Hey K, SmileI made a rhyme..... G is a friend of Salam..... I get a sense that it maybe closer to say G is raed or dear ... depending on your residency in relation to the mirror..... Saddam's world was a twisted one based on 13th century idealogy (as pointed out by Joenation.)

Suffrage is one of a thousand things unenforceable by rule of m-16. It has been ingrained by man, not God .... a huge difference in enforceability, instant pain as in 'sin now pay now', or, 'pay when you checkout '.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2003 11:11 am
From another thread I wrote:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1100000/images/_1100529_desfox300.jpg

This just in, GWB in diguise - be on the lookout!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2003 05:19 pm
In Iraq itself, the Guardian reports that a broadcaster who was appointed by the US as director of the new Iraq Media Network (IMN), and who had became known as "the voice of free Iraq" after the fall of Saddam Hussein, walked out of his job late last week, saying the United States is losing the propaganda war. Ahmed al-Rikabi said Saddam Hussein is scoring propaganda successes over the Americans by sending audio tapes to Arab satellite channels like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. "The people of Iraq, including the Sunni Muslims, are not about to turn against their liberators, but they are being incited to do so. These [foreign] channels contribute to tension within Iraq," he said. Mr. Al-Rikabi cited a lack of resources and funds to do his job. Brit Stephen Claypole, who was a public affairs adviser to Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, said: "It's very typical of everything the Americans get involved in. They announce large budgets and the money is never released." The New York Times reports that with a booming media market in Iraq, the US-run IMN has won over few Iraqis. Salon.com reports these kind of comments would come as no surprise to Col. David Hackworth, a veteran of many US wars and now a well-known media commentator. Mr. Hackworth has been one of the most persistent critics of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq. In the interview with Salon, Hackworth accused Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his chief deputy Paul Wolfowitz of making a "horrible estimate of the situation." Hackworth also said the US could be in Iraq for as long as "30 years." Disgruntled soldiers in Iraq have become Hackworth's main sources for the detailed information he receives about the situation in Iraq. Hackworth runs two websites (Soldiers for the Truth and his own site, Hackworth.com), where soldiers send him hundreds of e-mails a day, such as the one below.
"We did not receive a single piece of parts-support for our vehicles during the entire battle ... not a single repair part has made to our vehicles to date ... my unit had abandoned around 12 vehicles ... .I firmly believe that the conditions I just described contributed to the loss and injury of soldiers on the battlefield."


But Hackworth is not the only retired military officer questioning Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz. Writing in the Houston Chronicle, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (who served from May 2002 through February 2003 in the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Near East South Asia and Special Plans at the Pentagon) blasted the behavior she saw at the Secretary of Defense's office as "aberrant, pervasive, and contrary to good order and discipline."
If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of "intelligence" found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam occupation has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2003 05:59 pm
Yes, Au (where did that come from, BTW?). I'm going to scan in a couple of letters to the editor I just read in The Nation which clarify, I think, the "process" (such as it is) in DOD re: intelligence.
I'll post them here probably tomorrow morning -- not much time this evening. Could you like your above statements? Thanks.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2003 06:07 pm
Tartarin
It comes from the Christian Science Monitor"Daily Updates
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2003 06:18 pm
Thanks. It's a really helpful piece, Au.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2003 08:58 pm
Read this quote in the Atlantic Monthly from a recent issue:

"Power," the moral realist John Adams warned the idealist Thomas Jefferson, in words he could have addressed to George W. Bush, "always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws. Our passions possess so much metaphysical subtlely and so much overpowering eloquence that they insinuate themselves into the understanding and the conscience and convert both to their party."
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2003 10:24 pm
It was picked up by a number of papers, au, too. I read it on the opinion page of the Bergen Record (NJ). Quite often, that means that papers across the country pick up on it. Which, considering the clamp that's been put on so much news, and all the censorship, is a hopeful sign that some of the restraints are beginning not to hold.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2003 06:41 am
Thanks for that piece, au.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2003 06:58 am
a
Bush lied, men died.....

From somewhere in Iraq

i hope iraq stands firmly on it's feet and we are allowed to go home...i hope that iraq is allowed to make up for all the time it has lost...i hope everyone is able to see eye to eye and there will be some bit of peace in this world...because i don't want my children back over here...and i would really like to make it through a generation with out a war...



Bush lied
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2003 07:03 am
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2003 03:27 pm
Bush lied, men died
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/liedispensers.jpg
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2003 08:56 pm
Ge, good pic post of All hat, no Cattle.

I read the latest version of that saying in Europe: Fur coat, no knickers.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2003 06:29 am
a
For getting that 'war taste' out of your mind.


Something entirely different.
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 181
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/14/2025 at 09:42:50