THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

ican, neither of us speaks for the American people. This is what the collective was saying weeks before the election. "Three in Four Americans Support Bringing Troops Home From Iraq."
...

The Fox News poll asked Americans if they agreed or disagreed with this statement:
"The United States has sacrificed enough for the people of Iraq, and now it is time that they take on most of the burden of their security in their country and let U.S. troops to start to come home."
...

Quote:

You almost have it right. I am referring to the practice of using [special forces] to [kill deliberate killers of non-killers] amongst the populace in Central America.

Well, you are aware that that isn't what happened in the central america when we intervened?

Yes! That is what happened when we intervened in the Central American Wars, 1959-1989.

The 'special forces' we trained massacred entire villages in order to put down rebellion; is that what you propose?

At the time of these wars and after, I encountered contradictory reports about whether or not "the special forces we trained massacred entire villages" of ndkonks (i.e., non-deliberate killers of non-killers) in order to defeat the dkonks (i.e., deliberate killers of non-killers)--names like insurgents and rebels for dkonks does not reduce or excuse the horror dkonks perpetrate. Also, It has been alleged by many that the dkonks are the ones who actually "massacred entire villages" of ndkonks.

However, I do know that the special forces we trained killed ndkonks while attempting to defeat the dkonks. I also know that the special forces we trained defeated the dkonks. I also know that the central american countries in which the dkonks were defeated no longer need our help protecting their people from dkonks, since subsequently they did and do that successfully themselves.

And, YES, that is what I propose for Iraq

Cycloptichorn

The Pentagon called them "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth," sweeping them up after Sept. 11 and hauling them in chains to a U.S. military prison in southeastern Cuba. Since then, hundreds of the men have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to other countries, many of them for "continued detention." And then set free.

Decisions by more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia to release the former Guantanamo detainees raise questions about whether they were really as dangerous as the United States claimed, or whether some of America's staunchest allies have set terrorists and militants free.

...


* Once the detainees arrived in other countries, 205 of the 245 were either freed without being charged or were cleared of charges related to their detention at Guantanamo. Forty either stand charged with crimes or continue to be detained.

* Only a tiny fraction of transferred detainees have been put on trial. The AP identified 14 trials, in which eight men were acquitted and six are awaiting verdicts. Two of the cases involving acquittals -- one in Kuwait, one in Spain -- initially resulted in convictions that were overturned on appeal.

* The Afghan government has freed every one of the more than 83 Afghans sent home. Lawmaker Sibghatullah Mujaddedi, the head of Afghanistan's reconciliation commission, said many were innocent and wound up at Guantanamo because of tribal or personal rivalries.

* At least 67 of 70 repatriated Pakistanis are free after spending a year in Adiala Jail. A senior Pakistani Interior Ministry official said investigators determined that most had been "sold" for bounties to U.S. forces by Afghan warlords who invented links between the men and al-Qaida. "We consider them innocent," said the official, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue.

* All 29 detainees who were repatriated to Britain, Spain, Germany, Russia, Australia, Turkey, Denmark, Bahrain and the Maldives were freed, some within hours after being sent home for "continued detention."

...

Overall, about 165 Guantanamo detainees have been transferred from Guantanamo for "continued detention," while about 200 were designated for immediate release. Some 420 detainees remain at the U.S. base in Cuba.

...

Murat Kurnaz, a German-born Turkish citizen, was also quickly freed when he was flown to Germany in August, bound hand and foot, after more than four years at Guantanamo.

U.S. officials maintained he was a member of al-Qaida, based on what they said was secret evidence. But his New Jersey-based lawyer, Baher Azmy, said he was shown the classified evidence and was shocked to find how unpersuasive it was.

"It contains five or six statements exonerating him," Azmy said.

In October German prosecutors said they found no evidence that Kurnaz had links to Islamic radicals in Pakistan or Afghanistan and formally dropped their investigation.

The United States insists that the fact that so many of the former detainees have been freed by other countries doesn't mean they weren't dangerous.

...

Detainees are held at Guantanamo Bay because a military panel classifies them as an "enemy combatant," which refers not only to armed fighters but to anyone who aids enemy forces. Every year, each gets a hearing to determine whether he remains a security threat to the United States or has intelligence value.

Using those hearings as guidance, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England decides whether to keep the detainee at Guantanamo, release him, or send him to another country for detention.

This year, through Nov. 20, he had ruled on 149 prisoners. He decided that 106 should be held, 43 should be transferred to custody of other countries and none should be released outright.

Azmy, the New Jersey lawyer, said the distinction between release and transfer is largely a fiction because recipient countries are under no obligation to imprison the returnees. The United States doesn't even ask them to.

A senior U.S. State Department official acknowledged that "We do not ask countries to detain them on our behalf, so when a decision is made by a country to move forward with an investigation for prosecution, that is something they have decided to do pursuant to their own domestic law."

Requesting anonymity because she is not authorized to speak on the record, she said about 15 former detainees returned to the battlefield after being freed. The Pentagon was unable to provide details.

"That's the risk that goes along with transferring people out of Guantanamo," she said. "It's not foolproof."

Some former detainees still face the justice systems of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and France.

Six Kuwaitis returned from Guantanamo stood trial on terror-related charges. Five were acquitted, and on Dec. 5 an appeals court overturned the conviction of the sixth, Nasser al-Mutairi.

In France, the trial of six transferred Guantanamo detainees has focused as much on the U.S. prison camp as on their prosecution on charges of "criminal association with a terrorist enterprise."

Prosecutor Sonya Djemni-Wagner has requested light sentences, saying she took into account the defendants' "arbitrary detention ... at a facility outside all legal frameworks."

She is seeking one year in prison plus suspended sentences for five suspects and no sentence for the sixth, all of whom are currently free.

Their time already served behind bars in France should be counted toward their sentences, she said, meaning that even if convicted, none would be locked up.

Options Weighed for Surge in G.I.'s to Stabilize Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER and MICHAEL R. GORDON
The option of a major "surge" in troop strength is gaining
ground as part of a White House strategy review.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/world/middleeast/16military.html?th&emc=th

They still don't "get it." A temporary increase in troop levels only delays the violence until they leave. DUH!

cicerone imposter wrote:

They still don't "get it." A temporary increase in troop levels only delays the violence until they leave. DUH!

Oh no, we must not delay the violence. Let's move it up by permanent reductions of troop levels. By moving it up, everyone will be dead or maimed sooner, causing the violence to be ended sooner.

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

They still don't "get it." A temporary increase in troop levels only delays the violence until they leave. DUH!

Oh no, we must not delay the violence. Let's move it up by permanent reductions of troop levels. By moving it up, everyone will be dead or maimed sooner, causing the violence to be ended sooner.

If the Iraqi's are intent upon killing each other so be it. Perhaps the blood lust will subside and they will stop the slaughter. If not it will be their choice.

Hair-Raising New World
By HENRY SOKOLSKI
December 15, 2006; Page A20
Israeli officials this week made two painfully honest nuclear pronouncements. The first -- Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's indirect admission on Monday that Israel had nuclear weapons -- got the lion's share of attention. Another statement, however, was easily as interesting: On Wednesday Israeli officials publicly applauded Saudi Arabia's announcement that it and its Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) neighbors intended to develop "peaceful nuclear energy." Why Jerusalem's endorsement? Because, as Israeli officials explained, these Arab nations' announcement was "directed against Iran." That is, it threatened to check Iran's bomb activities with a Sunni nuclear-weapons option.

Welcome to the new nuclear age where peace is the sturdy child of terror and "peaceful nuclear energy" is the not-so-secret weapon of choice. Unlike Washington, which last month applauded Egypt and earlier Turkey (two other Iran-fearing nations) for the utility and peacefulness of their own just-announced nuclear programs, Israel deserves credit for candidly outing such projects for what they truly are -- nuclear-weapons options.

Still, even with Israel's atomic honesty and America's embrace of a new world full of nuclear-energy programs and a growing number of mutually-not-so-deterred states, no one has yet thought through just how hair-raising this new world is likely to be. Without any luck, in 15 to 20 years, we could see a Middle East (Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Syria and Israel), an Asia (Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma, Malaysia, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, China, India and Pakistan), and even a Latin America (Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina and Brazil) full of nuclear weapons-ready states.

This may seem far-fetched but consider: The U.S. is now encouraging nuclear power to sustain economic growth and save the world from global warming. The Bush administration has condoned or backed nuclear expansion in India, China, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Ukraine, France, Britain, Japan and Australia. Because of this and previous U.S. winking at the nuclear fuel-making activities of key U.S. allies, our own State Department's lawyers now eagerly insist that all nations have a right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to make nuclear power and fuel. All that's required, they say, is that states claim their activities have some conceivable civilian application and open them to occasional international visits.

The risk of pursuing such egregious policies is obvious: A world full of nuclear fuel-making states, claiming they are on the right side of the NPT, only days or weeks from having bombs.

The latest idea that is supposed to prevent this is to assure countries affordable (i.e., subsidized) nuclear fuel and reactors in order to bribe them to forgo nuclear fuel-making. If this is not enough, the International Atomic Energy Agency recently suggested that perhaps it would also be useful to share "proliferation resistant" -- but not necessarily proliferation proof -- reprocessing technologies (a key way to make nuclear-weapons fuel). All of this, of course, would be voluntary. Countries that signed up could change their minds.

Much of this is worse than doing nothing. Such subsidized nuclear aid, at a minimum, will undermine whatever moral or economic authority we might otherwise have to scold or isolate would-be bomb makers about their unnecessary, uneconomical and dangerous activities.

What then should we do instead? The short answer is to rely more on market mechanisms and less on government guessing to guide us through the myriad of choices that must be made to fuel and generate clean, economical electricity. Fortunately, the most dangerous nuclear activities, like nuclear fuel-making, are uneconomical as is producing large amounts of nuclear power in oil- and gas-rich countries with small electrical grids (e.g., much of the Middle East). There are also a number of non-nuclear ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We need to exploit this.

First, we should encourage open international bidding on the construction of large electrical power generators and their related fuel-making plants. Winning bids in any national competition should go not to the priciest or the most subsidized project but rather to the option that is the best value in producing a desired amount of clean electricity. Here, one might begin by pushing the Global Energy Charter for Sustainable Development, a popular treaty which calls for "open and competitive" energy markets.

Second, we must recognize that to meet tough greenhouse-gas emission goals, a consumption tax on carbon-generating fuels will be necessary. Besides making its introduction revenue neutral and progressive through tax reform (income and other tax reductions, plus rebates for citizens who are poor), these new taxes should be accompanied with an early sunset on all the fuel-specific subsidies now in place for nuclear and natural gas, oil, clean coal and renewables. Anything less would only stack the deck higher in favor of nuclear against safer, less subsidized alternatives.

Firms building and operating fuel-making and electricity-generating plants would have to assume the full costs of financing, insuring and decommissioning them. In the case of nuclear facilities, they also would have to assume the expense of safeguarding and physically securing them against diversions and terrorist and military attacks. Ideally, keeping governments from subsidizing these activities should be a priority not only for national governments, but for trade organizations like the EU and WTO.

Under such a market regime, nations that choose to subsidize any particular form of energy production would be called to account for undermining economic fairness. If they subsidized nuclear activities, they also could also be collared for threatening international security. Certainly, subsidizing nuclear fuel-making (where the world capacity is projected to exceed demand for the next decade or more) makes no economic sense.

Would this stop nuclear proliferation? No. But, unlike today's interpretation of the NPT, which ignores suspicious "civilian" nuclear undertakings even when it's obvious that they lack any economic rationale, it would help flag worrisome nuclear activities far sooner -- well before a nation came anywhere near making bombs. Would it stifle nuclear power? No. A carbon tax should favor nuclear power but no more than cheaper, clean alternatives.

Would it take care of a nuclear-ready Iran? Hardly. Only military, economic and diplomatic efforts to squeeze Iran (as we did the Soviet Union during the Cold War) can handle that problem. But it would prevent Iran from becoming an international nuclear model. It certainly would be far more effective in promoting nonproliferation than any American-led effort to subsidize atomic power, and clearly less risky than backing Israeli and GCC efforts to surround Iran with peaceful nuclear-weapons options.

Mr. Sokolski is executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center is editor of "Taming the Next Set of Strategic Weapons Threats" (Strategic Studies Institute, 2006).jensen

ican wrote: What if a majority of Iraqis are not intent on killing each other?

ican seems oblivious to events in Iraq that gets worse almost daily. Your "what if" scenario is worth less than shyt. They've been hell-bent on killing each other for over 1300 years.