0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 07:34 am
Too true, Geligesti.

According to this article, the change of heart from Jaafari came after meetings from the UN envoy and key Shiite religious leaders.

Iraq Shia alliance to vote on PM

Quote:
The UIA is expected to announce a leader by Saturday afternoon when the parliament is due to hold a session, which was postponed from Thursday.

Saturday's session, at which MPs are due to choose a speaker, likely to be drawn from the Sunni Arab parliamentary contingent, will be only its second since the general election in December.

Wrangling between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish parties over who should be prime minister has prevented the formation of a government.


As recently as Wednesday, Mr Jaafari was refusing to step aside, insisting his nomination was the democratic choice of the Iraqi people.

A meeting with United Nations envoy Ashraf Qazi and Shia Muslim religious leaders were key factors in Mr Jaafari's change of heart, correspondents quote MPs as saying.

Despite the impasse, hopes are rising for a breakthrough as violence continues across the country, the BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 12:28 pm
The One Certainty About Iraq: Spiraling Costs for Americans
The One Certainty About Iraq: Spiraling Costs for Americans
By Keith Garvin
ABC News
Thursday 20 April 2006

Poor planning, need for new equipment could push war costs to $1 trillion.
There are many uncertainties about the progress made by coalition forces and the future prospects for stability and democracy in Iraq, but there is at least one indisputable fact: The Bush administration vastly underestimated the costs of the Iraq war.

Not only in human lives, but in monetary terms as well, the costs of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq far exceed the administration's initial projection of a $50 billion tab. While the number of American casualties in Iraq has declined this year, the amount of money spent to fight the war and rebuild the country has spiralled upward.

The price is expected to almost double after lawmakers return to Capitol Hill next week when the Senate takes up a record $106.5 billion emergency spending bill that includes $72.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed a $92 billion version of the bill last month that included $68 billion in war funding. That comes on top of $50 billion already allocated for the war this fiscal year.

Poor Planning Could Push War Costs to $1 Trillion

ABC analyst Tony Cordesman, who also holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the exorbitant costs come down to poor planning.

"When the administration submitted its original budget for the Iraq war, it didn't provide money for continuing the war this year or any other. We could end up spending up to $1 trillion in supplemental budgets for this war."

According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the United States spent $48 billion for Iraq in 2003, $59 billion in 2004, and $81 billion in 2005. The center predicts the figure will balloon to $94 billion for 2006. That equates to a $1,205 bill for each of America's 78 million families, on top of taxes they already pay.

Bill Will Linger Long After Withdrawal

Analysts say the increases can be blamed on the rising cost of maintaining military equipment and developing new equipment. As the cost of military equipment escalates, the cost of the war escalates. In fact, developing state-of-the-art weapons to defeat insurgents and their roadside bombs will hit the wallets of American taxpayers for years to come.

"The Department of Defense has increased its investment in new equipment from $700 billion to $1.4 trillion in the coming years," Cordesman said.

Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker recently warned lawmakers that the cost of upkeep and replacement of military equipment would continue even after U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq. To fully reequip and upgrade the U.S. Army after the war ends will cost $36 billion over six years, and that figure assumes U.S. forces will start withdrawing from Iraq in July, and be completely out of the country by the end of 2008.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 12:40 pm
Aren't the Kurds supposed to get someone of theirs into this leadership soup?
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 12:43 pm
I saw something where the Iraq spending is now 10 Billion per month. I bet the Republicans are sure happy that's not being spent on our own poor and needy! That would be criminal if we spent it on us ... we need to deliver Democracy to Iraq!! We need to make sure Halliburton and the rest of Cheney's "investors" are getting a good return!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 12:54 pm
With proven Haliburton over-charges on most things, we can be assured that the cost will continue to escalate in Iraq.

"Conservatism" no longer has any meaning for the Conservatives in the US of A.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 12:55 pm
The only thing conservative is their pea-brain.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 01:40 pm
Iraqi PM nomination raises possible end to impasse

Quote:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's ruling Shi'ite Alliance nominated Jawad al-Maliki for prime minister on Friday, winning support from the main Sunni Arab bloc and raising a possible end to a four-month deadlock over forming a coalition government.

No reaction was available from the Kurdish alliance, whose support would be key to a national unity government that Washington hopes can avert any slide toward a sectarian civil war and draw Sunni Arab insurgents into the political process.

Maliki, a leader in the Dawa party who spent years living in Shi'ite-dominated Iran during Saddam Hussein's rule, had previously been seen as an unlikely candidate for prime minister because he was widely viewed as a sectarian politician.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 03:23 pm
revel, That'd be the nomination impasse, but not the insurgency or sectarian violence that's getting worse for the Iraqi people.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 05:54 pm
THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH of American foreign policy is
that the last five years have left us with a series of choices
-- and all of them are bad. The United States can't keep
troops in Iraq indefinitely, for obvious reasons. It can't
withdraw them, because of the chaos that would ensue.
The United States can't keep prisoners at Guantánamo
Bay ... indefinitely, because of international and domestic
challenges. But it can't hastily release them, since many
were and more have become terrorists. And it can't even
bring them to trial, because of procedural abuses that have
already occurred. ... The central flaw of American foreign
policy these last few years has been the triumph of hope,
wishful thinking, and self-delusion over realism and
practicality.

-- James Fallows, in the latest issue of Atlantic Monthly
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 06:30 pm
The central flaw in American foreign policy up to and including 9/11 was a failure to timely and properly assess the degree of threat to the security of Americans presented by terrorist malignancy.
Quote:
UN CHARTER Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Quote:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations ...

1. America is a member of the UN.
2. Al-Qaeda declared war on America in 1996 and 1998.
3. Then al-Qaeda trained al-Qaeda attackers to highjack airliners.
4. Then these Al-Qaeda attackers learned in American flight schools how to fly airplanes.
5. Then these Al-Qaeda attackers armed themselves with boxcutters.
6. Then these al-Qaeda attackers on 9/11/2001 boarded four American airliners.
7. Then these al-Qaeda attackers attacked the crew and passengers on these four American airliners.
8. Then these al-Qaeda attackers highjacked these four American airliners.
9. Then these al-Qaeda attackers were armed with these four American airliners.
10. Then these al-Qaeda attackers murdered almost 3,000 American civilians with these airliners.
11. Then America in self-defense decided to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
12. Then America declared war on al-Qaeda and a first country (i.e., Afghanistan) that harbored them.
13. Then America invaded that country 10/20/2001.
14. Then America replaced the government of that country and attacked the al-Qaeda harbored there.
15. Then America began to democratize that government.
16. Then America declared war on al-Qaeda and a second country (i.e., Iraq) that harbored them.
17. Then America invaded that country 3/20/2003.
18. Then America replaced the government of that country and attacked the al-Qaeda harbored there.
19. Then America began to democratize that government.

Quote:
... until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

20. The UN debated what measures were "necessary to maintain international peace and security."
21. Then the UN decided ... ???
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 07:14 am
CIA warned Bush of no weapons in Iraq: retired official

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Central Intelligence Agency warned US President George W. Bush before the Iraq war that it had reliable information the government of Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, a retired CIA operative disclosed.

But the operative, Tyler Drumheller, said top White House officials simply brushed off the warning, saying they were "no longer interested" in intelligence and that the policy toward Iraq had been already set.

The disclosure, made in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" program due to be broadcast late Sunday, adds to earlier accusations that the Bush administration used intelligence selectively as it built its case for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam's regime.

The administration claimed in the run-up to the war that Baghdad had extensive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was working clandestinely to build a nuclear arsenal, therefore, presenting a threat to the world.

An extensive CIA-led probe undertaken after the US military took control of Iraq failed to turn up any such weapons. But Bush and other members of his administration have blamed the fiasco on a massive intelligence failure and vehemently denied manipulating information they had been provided.

However, Drumheller, who was a top CIA liaison officer in Europe before the war, insisted Bush had been explicitly warned well before an invasion order was given that the United States may not find the suspected weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The information about the absence of the suspected weapons in Iraq, according to excerpts of Drumheller's remarks, was clandestinely provided to the United States by former Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri, who doubled as a covert intelligence agent for Western services.

Then-CIA director George Tenet immediately delivered this report to Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking administration officials, but the information was dismissed, Drumheller said.

"The group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested," the former CIA official recalled. "And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.'"

Drumheller said the White House did not want any additional data from Sabri because, as he pointed out, "the policy was set."

"The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy," he argued.

The CIA declined to comment on the disclosure.

Drumheller admitted that Sabri was just one source, but pointed out that the administration would not shy away from other single-source information if it suited its policy goals.

"They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all," he complained.

The White House had embraced a British report that Iraq had purchased 500 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger, allegedly to restart its nuclear weapons program.

A special CIA envoy Joseph Wilson, who made a secret trip to Niger in late 2002 to verify the report, dismissed it as unfounded -- much to the displeasure of the White House.

Drumheller, who retired from the agency last year, is the second high-ranking ex-CIA official to criticize the administration's use of intelligence in months leading up to the war.

Paul Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, wrote in the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs magazine that the White House was "cherry-picking" information and that "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made."

There was no immediate reaction from the White House to the latest charges.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 07:31 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quote:
revel, That'd be the nomination impasse, but not the insurgency or sectarian violence that's getting worse for the Iraqi people.


I think by this point all sides were locked in and were desperately looking for a way out of this impass. Jawad al-Maliki is actually no different Jaafari in terms of idealogies and stuff, he also has a history of making harsh political statements. This is what a Sunni member had to say about Maliki.

Quote:
The name of Mr Maliki, a close ally of Mr Jaafari and a member of his Dawa party, has circulated for several weeks as a possible replacement. Yesterday Sunni and Kurdish leaders welcomed him as a potential end to the stalemate.

"We have no objection to Jawad al-Maliki," said Iyad al-Samarrai, of the Sunni-led Iraqi Islamic party. "Although there is not much difference [from Mr Jaafari] from the ideological point of view, we have a feeling he is more practical, more willing to solve problems. We don't want to complicate the process [further]. It's better to move on.''


source

I think the key phrase there is, "It's better to move on."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 07:36 pm
The mistakes have all been at the strategic and political levels."Kori Schake, a fellow at the Hoover Institution who teaches Army cadets at West Point, said some of the debates revolved around the issues raised in "Dereliction of Duty," a book that analyzes why the Joint Chiefs of Staff seemed unable or unwilling to challenge civilian decisions during the war in Vietnam.But the colonel said his classmates were also aware of how the Rumsfeld Pentagon quashed dissenting views that many argued were proved correct, and prescient, like those of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, a former Army chief of staff. He was shunted aside after telling Congress, before the invasion, that it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure and stabilize Iraq.

Others contend that the military's own failings are equally at fault. A field-grade officer now serving in Iraq said he thought it was incorrect for the retired generals to call for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. His position, he said, is that "if there is a judgment to be cast, it rests as much upon the shoulders of our senior military leaders."

That officer, like several others interviewed, emphasized that while these issues often occupied officers' minds, the debate had not hobbled the military's ability to function in Iraq. "No impact here that I can see regarding this subject," he said.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Apr, 2006 12:15 am
Spineless politican advisers discover the law, one invasion too late.

Foreign Office lawyers have formally advised Jack Straw that it would be illegal under international law for Britain to support any US-led military action against Iran.

http://www.sundayherald.com/55316
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Apr, 2006 09:18 am
McT, Our legalites in the US are too chicken to make such demands of Bush - even with all the knowledge that he started the war in Iraq on false justifications. We don't have a prayer if Bush decides to attack Iran; the Yes Generals will follow through as required.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Apr, 2006 10:45 am
The central flaw in American foreign policy up to and including 9/11 was a failure to timely and properly assess the degree of threat to the security of Americans presented by terrorist malignancy.
Quote:
UN CHARTER Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


President Carter
Quote:
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Apr, 2006 01:01 pm
Yea, like invading Iraq stopped any kind of spread of terrorist and violence.

Iraqi Shi'ite, Sunni friendship meal ends in death

Quote:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Just hours after Iraq's prime minister-designate promised to unite Iraqis on Saturday, three Shi'ite brothers and two Sunni brothers went out to dinner together.

It was an uplifting gathering in a country where sectarian mistrust deepens after every bombing, shooting and kidnapping.

But the harsh reality of Iraq caught up with the group of friends just after they paid the check and left the restaurant.

Gunmen in cars pulled up and shot them dead in plain view of the public, police said. Relatives who washed the bodies for burial said their eyes had been gouged out and hands bound.

Friendships were forgotten the next day as vows of revenge whipped up an already emotional crowd at the funeral for the Shi'ite brothers -- Iyad, Ali and Mohammad Yazan.

There appeared to be no compassion for the Sunni Arab brothers -- Omar and Hakam Khudeir -- even though they were victims of the same hail of bullets.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Apr, 2006 01:15 pm
c.i.

I read that piece this morning. Your red comments certainly caught my eye in my reading of it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Apr, 2006 01:20 pm
Rummy is a peace time Defense Secretary; he knows nothing about fighting a real war.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Apr, 2006 06:26 am
One of the main problems Maliki is going to have is either controlling the militias or at least changing people's mind about the nature of the militias. Also it is not only Shiite militia in Iraq but also kurdish militias which are a problem. But according to the Kurd's they don't have militia but a "regulated force."

Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq // The man selected to lead Iraq continued to send mixed signals on the critical issue of dismantling militias, even as the U.S. ambassador said yesterday that disbanding the groups is the single most significant step in preventing civil war.
Jawad al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim political figure endorsed Saturday as prime minister by Iraq's new parliament, has 30 days to form a Cabinet that meets the elected body's approval. But as Iraqi politicians haggle over influence and jostle for government posts, the problem of militias has emerged as the biggest challenge.

In one of his first speeches after his endorsement, al-Maliki promised to rein in the militias, but said he would do so by adhering to a controversial law that requires making them part of the government's security forces.

"It's a message in two directions," said Hassan Bazzaz, a political analyst in Baghdad. "One to those who are scared of the militias and the other message is to the militia people: 'We will take care of you.'"

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said yesterday that militias and "death squads" are "a serious challenge to stability in Iraq to building a successful country based on rule of law."

But taking guns out of politics remains a challenge in a country where political groups have assembled armed forces to back their agendas.

Al-Maliki's coalition is backed by two Shiite militias, the Iranian-trained Badr Brigades and radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Even the country's Kurdish president appears unwilling to lay down arms. Jalal Talabani, speaking yesterday to reporters in Erbil, defended the 70,000-strong Kurdish peshmerga militia as a "regulated force."

"It seems like the Kurds always want an exception," said Ezzat Shabander, a secular legislator from former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's electoral slate.


source

Meanwhile prisoners in Iraq are still being abused.

Quote:
BAGHDAD -- Last Nov. 13, U.S. soldiers found 173 incarcerated men, some of them emaciated and showing signs of torture, in a secret bunker in an Interior Ministry compound in central Baghdad. The soldiers immediately transferred the men to a separate detention facility to protect them from further abuse, the U.S. military reported.

Since then, there have been at least six joint U.S.-Iraqi inspections of detention centers, most of them run by Iraq's Shiite Muslim-dominated Interior Ministry. Two sources involved with the inspections, one Iraqi official and one U.S. official, said abuse of prisoners was found at all the sites visited through February. U.S. military authorities confirmed that signs of severe abuse were observed at two of the detention centers.

But U.S. troops have not responded by removing all the detainees, as they did in November. Instead, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials, only a handful of the most severely abused detainees at a single site were removed for medical treatment. Prisoners at two other sites were removed to alleviate overcrowding. U.S. and Iraqi authorities left the rest where they were.


source
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/30/2025 at 06:11:48