0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 06:39 am
mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
All their human rights have been taken away. Would you prefer to live or die under those same circumstance?


Life is preferable to death.


American quotation: "Give me liberty or give me death!"
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 07:06 am
McTag wrote:
American quotation: "Give me liberty or give me death!"


This is an eighteenth century quote attributed to Patrick Henry. The remainder of the quote is often omitted: ".....but preferably liberty."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 08:13 am
The Hardest Word
The Hardest Word
By Scott Ritter
The Guardian UK
Friday 26 May 2006

One has to wonder as to what must have been going through the minds of those who were advising George W Bush and Tony Blair to "come clean", so to speak, about their respective shortcomings regarding the conduct of the war in Iraq. With over 2,460 American and 106 UK soldiers killed in Iraq (not to mention untold thousands of dead Iraqis), the two people in the world most responsible for the ongoing debacle in Iraq displayed the combination of indifference and ignorance that got them neck deep in a quagmire of their own making to begin with.

President Bush kicked himself for "talking too tough", while the British prime minister ruminated on the decision to disband the Ba'athist infrastructure that held Iraq together in the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein. Neither expressed any regret over the decision to invade Iraq in the first place.

Bush made no reference to the exaggerated and falsified claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction he and his loyal ally bandied about so freely in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Blair, recently returned from a visit to Baghdad where he met with the newly appointed prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, did not reflect on the reality that the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was a more peaceful and prosperous land before British and American troops overthrew the Iraqi president and condemned Iraq to the horrific reality of insurgent-fed civil strife.

"Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing," Bush remarked, although he was quick to add, "Not everything has turned out the way we hoped". That, of course, could qualify for the understatement of the year. For his part, Blair spoke of faulty judgements, perhaps the greatest of which was to underestimate the scope and intensity of the insurgency, which he in typical fashion characterized as fighting against the democratic process, as opposed to struggling against an illegal, illegitimate and unjust occupation.

Blair shared his reflective insights at moment when the people of the United Kingdom were wrestling with new revelations concerning how he misled their attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, into putting forward a legal finding that enabled Britain to go to war with Iraq void of a second United Nations security council resolution. Blair had apparently told Lord Goldsmith that Iraq was in "material breach" of its obligations, despite the fact that no new intelligence on WMD had been unearthed, and UN weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq receiving total cooperation from the Iraqi government. Not a peep from the prime minister on this matter, though.

For his part Bush waxed eloquently about the cost of war to America. "No question that the Iraq war has, you know, created a sense of consternation here in America," the president said. "I mean, when you turn on your TV screen and see innocent people die day in and day out, it affects the mentality of our country." He added: "I can understand why the American people are troubled by the war in Iraq. I understand that. But I also believe the sacrifice is worth it and it's necessary."

Of course, the president remained mute as to the current visit to Iraq by the commandant of the Marine Corps, General Michael Hagee, who in the light of recent accusations of excessive force on the part of Marines fighting a life and death struggle in the Anbar province of Iraq, were cautioned to kill "only when justified". Some 717 Marines have lost their lives in the fighting in Iraq, most in the violence-prone Anbar province, where the Iraqi insurgency is particularly deeply entrenched. Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment are accused of slaughtering scores of innocent Iraqis in the aftermath of a fire-fight that followed a deadly attack on the Marines by a road-side bomb. In the middle of a conflict not of their making, fighting an enemy as deadly and resolute as they themselves are, the Marines are now lectured by general's to destroy only that which needs destroyed, kill only those who need killed, as if war was ever that easy.

Instead of focusing on the horrific reality of the unmitigated disaster that these two politicians are solely responsible for inflicting on their own respective armed forces and the people of Iraq, Bush deflected any talk about bringing American troops home. "I have said to the American people, 'As the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down,'" he said. "But I've also said that our commanders on the ground will make that decision." Blair dutifully chimed in that, in the aftermath of his Baghdad visit, he "came away thinking that the challenge is still immense, but I also came away more certain than ever that we should rise to it."

Both politicians were playing to their respective electorates, Blair in an effort to forestall his inevitable departure from government, Bush trying against hope to prevent a democratic landslide in the mid-term elections upcoming in November. But they both forgot that, to paraphrase an old military saying, "the enemy has a vote, too." And the Iraqi insurgency votes on a daily basis, its ballots counted in the bodies of those killed because of the violence brought on Iraq thanks to the decision by Bush and Blair to invade.

That decision, based upon lies and deceit, and done in pursuit of pure power (either in the form of global hegemony, per Bush, or a pathetic effort to ride Bush's coattails in the name of maintaining a "special relationship", for Blair), underscores the reality that when it comes to Iraq, both are resting on a policy that is as corrupt as one can possibly imagine.

Void of any genuine reflection as to what actually went wrong, and lacking in any reality-based process which seeks to formulate a sound way out of Iraq, these two politicians are simply continuing the self-delusional process of blundering down a path in Iraq that can only lead to more death and destruction.

Perhaps the advisors of Bush and Blair thought they were going to put a human face on two leaders who had been so vilified over the Iraq debacle. If so they failed. The joint press conference was little more than a pathetic show where two failed politicians voiced their continued support of failed policies, which had gotten their respective nations embroiled in a failed war. To quote Blair: "What more can I say? Probably not wise to say anything more at all."
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 08:54 am
wandeljw wrote:
McTag wrote:
American quotation: "Give me liberty or give me death!"


This is an eighteenth century quote attributed to Patrick Henry. The remainder of the quote is often omitted: ".....but preferably liberty."


My point was that they aren't having either one, life or liberty.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 09:36 am
People like mm thinks it's okay to imprison innocents for our "protection" without realizing it fails the ethics, humanity, and legal tests.

That they claim to be "American" is about the most hyperbole of statements made by them; they don't understand anything about Amercanism.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 10:51 am
The itm are systematically mass murdering civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote:
www.m-w.com
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
- geno·cid·al /"je-n&-'sI-d&l/ adjective

Systematic mass murder of civilians is genocide.

The itm have repeatedly declared they will perpetrate genocide.

The itm are guilty of deciding to perpetrate genocide.

The itm are perpetrating genocide.

The itm are guilty of perpetrating genocide.

Those who claim America is responsible for the genocide being perpetrated by the itm are liars.

Those who claim President Bush or any other President of the USA is responsible for the genocide being perpetrated by the itm are liars.

Those who claim they love America, while they blame America for the genocide being perpetrated by the itm, are liars.


Note: itm = inhuman terrorist murderers = murderers of civilians, and those who abet the murder of civilians, and those who advocate the murder of civilians, and those who are silent witnesses of those who murder civilians.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 12:18 pm
ican711nm wrote:
The itm are systematically mass murdering civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote:
www.m-w.com
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
- geno·cid·al /"je-n&-'sI-d&l/ adjective

Systematic mass murder of civilians is genocide.

The itm have repeatedly declared they will perpetrate genocide.

The itm are guilty of deciding to perpetrate genocide.

The itm are perpetrating genocide.

The itm are guilty of perpetrating genocide.

Those who claim America is responsible for the genocide being perpetrated by the itm are liars.

Those who claim President Bush or any other President of the USA is responsible for the genocide being perpetrated by the itm are liars.

Those who claim they love America, while they blame America for the genocide being perpetrated by the itm, are liars.


Note: itm = inhuman terrorist murderers = murderers of civilians, and those who abet the murder of civilians, and those who advocate the murder of civilians, and those who are silent witnesses of those who murder civilians.


Saddam kept a brutal handle on this, although he also did his own killing.

Now there is no apparent restraint. The occupying force seems powerless and is at the same time an irritant at best to the Iraqis.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 01:57 pm
McTag wrote:

...
Saddam kept a brutal handle on this, although he also did his own killing.

Now there is no apparent restraint. The occupying force seems powerless and is at the same time an irritant at best to the Iraqis.

Saddam also murdered civilians without apparent restraint. Over the 24 years of his reign, Saddam's regime murdered over a 980,000 civilians -- an average of more than 3,400 civilians per month. In the last three years of his reign, Saddam's regime murdered on average more than 1,500 per month. The itm murdered about 11,000 civilians since the first of this year. That's on average about 2,200 civilians murdered per month.

Clearly, it is long past time to terminate the existing restraints on our military and have them proceed in earnest to exterminate the itm.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 02:22 pm
Quote:
Clearly, it is long past time to terminate the existing restraints on our military and have them proceed in earnest to exterminate the itm.


That's all we need is for the US military to go on a rampage in an effort to get the "itm" As though there is not enough death and destruction in Iraq as it is.

Remember Fallujah?

More Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces than by insurgents, data shows

The worst part of it is that it still didn't do any good, what makes you think doing more of the same is going to "exterminate the itm?" Who would we save if we end up killing everybody?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 03:24 pm
ican711nm wrote:
McTag wrote:

...
Saddam kept a brutal handle on this, although he also did his own killing.

Now there is no apparent restraint. The occupying force seems powerless and is at the same time an irritant at best to the Iraqis.

Saddam also murdered civilians without apparent restraint. Over the 24 years of his reign, Saddam's regime murdered over a 980,000 civilians -- an average of more than 3,400 civilians per month. In the last three years of his reign, Saddam's regime murdered on average more than 1,500 per month. The itm murdered about 11,000 civilians since the first of this year. That's on average about 2,200 civilians murdered per month.

Clearly, it is long past time to terminate the existing restraints on our military and have them proceed in earnest to exterminate the itm.


On the TV news tonight, court martial of Marines from Haditha to go ahead.

I don't think the military need fewer restraints.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 04:50 pm
revel wrote:
Quote:
Clearly, it is long past time to terminate the existing restraints on our military and have them proceed in earnest to exterminate the itm.


That's all we need is for the US military to go on a rampage in an effort to get the "itm" As though there is not enough death and destruction in Iraq as it is.

Remember Fallujah?

More Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces than by insurgents, data shows

How was/is it possible to determine in an assemblage of itm and civilians who was/are itm, and who was/are civilians. Remember in the case of Fallujah, thousands of Fallujahns accepted our invitation to leave Fallujah before we entered it to murder the itm there.

If we publically announce our intention to murder itm in each town as we did in Fallujah, the civilians will understand it safer to identify the itm and/or flee from the itm than bond with them.


The worst part of it is that it still didn't do any good, what makes you think doing more of the same is going to "exterminate the itm?" Who would we save if we end up killing everybody?
What makes you think that murdering itm in only one town is enough to do some good; that is, is enough to save thousands of civilian lives?

More importantly, what makes you think that continuing to do what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is sufficient to save thousands of civilian lives.


Would you care to suggest what you think is a better alternative?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 04:54 pm
Brought to you by the American Committees on Foreign Relations ACFR NewsGroup No. 717, Wednesday, May 31, 2006.

Quote:
An Iraqi Optimist's Tale
>From horror under Saddam to uncertainty today.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110008440
BY BRET STEPHENS
Sunday, May 28, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Nasreen Siddeek-Barwari was just 13 when she entered the Fedhelia women's prison in east Baghdad. It was October 1981, and Saddam Hussein's campaign against the Kurds would soon kick into high gear. Her father, a former Iraqi military officer, was arrested after years of harassment by the secret police; one of his sons was known to be active in the Kurdish resistance up north. She, a younger brother and her mother were placed that same day in a cell with about 40 other women and children.

"It was a mix of Arabs, communists, Christians, Islamists, mainly Kurds," she recalls. "The cell was so packed we didn't have room to sleep. We were from different places politically but we were all suffering for the same reason: We were different from the regime."

"I became old then," adds the still-young Ms. Siddeek-Barwari, who earlier this month resigned as Iraq's minister for municipalities and public works after serving nearly three years under three governments. She has survived two assassination attempts (not everyone in her retinue was so lucky) and struggled, with mixed results, to reform her hidebound ministry. As she tells her story in fluent English, one begins to understand how this woman--whose personal elegance belies a hard-bitten life--can describe herself as a "realistic optimist" about her country.


Six months into their indefinite prison term, the family was ordered into a sealed bus, driven through the night and deposited in the desert. "We were so afraid they would just dump us into an open grave," she says. Instead, they found themselves reunited with her father, albeit in a prison camp. Six months later they were released.

By the time the Gulf War came, Ms. Siddeek-Barwari was enrolled in Baghdad University, working toward a degree in architectural engineering. Though the U.S. bombardment was terrifying, it was, she says, also cause for joy: "That was the moment for regime change. Saddam was so weak. The international community was united. The Iraqi people were not so damaged." Besides, "I had faith the U.S. wouldn't target people."

Her confidence in America proved well-founded in the second matter, but not in the first. She went north as the Kurdish peshmerga launched a revolt against Saddam, and then walked three days straight to Turkey after the revolt was defeated. After two frigid months in a tent camp for refugees, she decided--courageously, given her political profile--to return to Baghdad to complete the degree. Three months later she was back in Kurdistan.

The next 12 years were spent working for regional and international agencies, with two years off to get a master's from Harvard. She organized the return of a half million refugees from Turkey and Iran and the reconstruction of 3,000 of the 4,000 villages destroyed by Saddam. It was excellent training. "We faced the same challenges in Kurdistan that Iraq faces today: a broken infrastructure, an administrative vacuum, security threats from Saddam, neighboring countries and the PKK [a Kurdish terrorist group]."


In April 2003, she watched from Irbil as Iraqis pulled down Saddam's statue in Baghdad's Firdos square. "That was a very happy moment." But the looting that followed did more than just property damage: "It showed the Americans were not in control," she says. The perception was both lasting and fatal.

Joining the Governing Council that September, Ms. Siddeek-Barwari witnessed American mistakes at first hand. She describes Paul Bremer as an outstanding details man who "knew everything about water, electricity and oil." But he was remarkably ignorant about Iraq, had zero communications skills, and was peremptory in his personal dealings. Still worse was the staff of the Coalition Provisional Authority. "The CPA did not invest in empowering Iraqi politicians, in training them," she says. "They took over everything. Culturally, that was unacceptable to Iraqis."

Overbearing Americans weren't Ms. Siddeek-Barwari's only problem. At her ministry, which she largely inherited from the old regime, the use of computers was "unheard of," employees were "lazy," and there was little institutional capacity to think, plan and act. But the main challenge, she says, "was to reorient the ministry from one that served the regime to one that served the people."

She also complains that of the $4.2 billion promised in 2003 by the U.S. for the sanitation sector, only $1.2 billion has been delivered, a third of which must go to overhead. The result: 75% of Iraq's garbage goes uncollected, and while water coverage is improving, 33% of Iraqis still don't have access to a water line. Her pleas for more funding are usually met with polite rebuffs from her U.S. counterparts: " 'Well, it's our decision,' they say."

Then there is security. "I believe in getting closer to a problem," she says of her management style. But that's hard to do when it means risking her life and the lives of her entourage. The Iraqi army is now better able to deal with the insurgency, which she also sees weakening since elections earlier this year installed a fully representative government. But ordinary crime and sectarian violence have exploded, and Baghdad today is less safe than it was a year ago.


Will the new government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki do better than its predecessor? "We have to stop thinking that one person will solve Iraq's problems," she says. The country will soon embark on a review process to settle remaining differences over the constitution approved last year. "The Sunnis need to understand that federalism is not a threat to them," adding that if the review process fails, "I cannot see where the country will go."

Yet the disappointments following Iraq's liberation have not overwhelmed Ms. Siddeek-Barwari. "We still have an opportunity," she says, observing that she has survived prison, the false dawn of the Gulf War, a refugee camp, Kurdistan's travails, Saddam's terror and the concentrated attention of the insurgency. And as she tells her tale--hardly the most shocking to emerge from Iraq in recent years--it becomes clear how she can face each day. She was born to a country of survivors. And they have already survived worse.

Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 06:18 pm
In George Orwell's fictional work "NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR" (now alias 2084) the "Inner Party" maintained its control over all party members by ordering the "vaporization," hanging, or shooting of those not conforming to BIG BROTHER's dictums.

In a letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi, al-Zawahiri stated: "The war in Iraq is central to al Qa'ida's global jihad and will not end with an American departure."
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 09:29 pm
ican711nm wrote:
In George Orwell's fictional work "NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR" (now alias 2084) the "Inner Party" maintained its control over all party members by ordering the "vaporization," hanging, or shooting of those not conforming to BIG BROTHER's dictums.

In a letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi, al-Zawahiri stated: "The war in Iraq is central to al Qa'ida's global jihad and will not end with an American departure."


Don't tell me, let me guess .......... if the vaporizor was on the fritz, they would hang them, if it was rainy outside they would just take them to the basement and shoot them .... or did they have a dart board with all the possibilities clearly labeled?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 01:10 am
In May, 11 Britons were killed in Iraq. These are the worst losses since the war ended, prompting more calls for a British withdrawal.

Bloodiest month: UK suffers largest post-war losses
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 04:23 am
itms.

It is easy to remember that if you dehumanize people, it is easier to think the unthinkable and do horrible deeds to them. Just think of other shortcuts and derogatory terms that have been used over the last century.

Just think of how much easier it is to drop a bomb from 40,000 feet than knife a person up close and personal.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 06:25 am
Ican wrote
Quote:
How was/is it possible to determine in an assemblage of itm and civilians who was/are itm, and who was/are civilians. Remember in the case of Fallujah, thousands of Fallujahns accepted our invitation to leave Fallujah before we entered it to murder the itm there.


That's just it, it is not really possible to determine who is an innocent civilian and who is an insurgent when you are dropping bombs on the whole town.

http://www.notinourname.net/graphics/child-rubble.jpg

I don't know any other alternative at this point. I only know that adding more to the violence by our hands is not good. I for sure don't want to do the same to every town in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 10:07 am
sumac wrote:
itms.

It is easy to remember that if you dehumanize people, it is easier to think the unthinkable and do horrible deeds to them. Just think of other shortcuts and derogatory terms that have been used over the last century.

Just think of how much easier it is to drop a bomb from 40,000 feet than knife a person up close and personal.

The itm have dehumanized themselves by choosing to become genocidal maniacs. Your compassion is misplaced. Your compassion is directed too much to the victimizers and too little to their victims.

My compassion is drawn exclusively to their victims, their victim's families, their future victims, and their future victim's families. In the last century the only way civilized humans were able to defend themselves against such genocidal maniacs is to exterminate them.

If all the itm want is for the USA to remove its military personnel from the middle east, all they have to do is renounce their declarations of war against civilians and stop murdering civilians. If they were to do that, the USA would gladly -- make that euphorically -- remove its military personnel from the middle east.

But if you think you know a better way, then please post it.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 10:17 am
Not going to bother, ican. We created these madmen - we pushed them over the edge. We have to take responsibility for the chain of events unleashed by our actions.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 10:44 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
In George Orwell's fictional work "NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR" (now alias 2084) the "Inner Party" maintained its control over all party members by ordering the "vaporization," hanging, or shooting of those not conforming to BIG BROTHER's dictums.

In a letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi, al-Zawahiri stated: "The war in Iraq is central to al Qa'ida's global jihad and will not end with an American departure."


Don't tell me, let me guess .......... if the vaporizor was on the fritz, they would hang them, if it was rainy outside they would just take them to the basement and shoot them .... or did they have a dart board with all the possibilities clearly labeled?

Read the book. You'll find in the book that the rationale for whether to vaporize, hang or shoot is not specifed.
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
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 05:29:36