9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 01:07 pm
I'd like to point out that people warned these reasons were invalid far before the invasion began. And yet, no apology has been given to them, who were insulted for holding these opinions, and no admission that they were right.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 01:29 pm
Interesting quote from FrancisFukuyama ("America at the Crossroads"):
Quote:
It seems very doubtful at this juncture that history will judge the Iraq war kindly. By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, training ground, and operational base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 01:35 pm
Fukuyama is a neocon who should never address policy - he's an excellent historian, but mostly on the Nietzsche-Marx timescales - and he has no clue on geography.

EDIT service here will not accept f u k u y a m a - too, too ridiculous Smile
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 02:57 pm
xingu wrote:
ican wrote:
"There's an AQ camp in an area of Iraq that Saddam Hussein has no control over."

You at least got that much straight, but you didn't get the rest straight.


Well I'm glad to see you finally realized that Saddam Hussein had no control over that terrority. It took you long enough.
...

Laughing

You continue to not get it straight.

Over the last 8 months, I've repeatedly posted here the following (underline added by me):

Senate Select Committee wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Conclusion 6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.

Rolling Eyes

By the way, while Saddam knew he did not control (i.e., have jurisdiction over) northeastern Iraq, he nonetheless invaded a major city, Irbil, in northeastern Iraq in 1996. It has been alleged that someone in northeastern Iraq invited him to do that.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 02:58 pm
What exactly does 'al-qaeda affiliate' mean to you, Ican?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 03:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
What exactly does 'al-qaeda affiliate' mean to you, Ican?

Cycloptichorn


[emphasis added]
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=affiliate&x=31&y=8

Main Entry: 1 affiliate Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: fil t also a -; - d.+V
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ed/-ing/-s
Etymology: Medieval Latin affiliatus, past participle of affiliare to adopt as a son, from Latin ad- + filius son -- more at FEMININE
transitive verb

1 a : to attach as a member or branch : bring or receive into close connection
<the> <the> <a> <everyone> b : to join as a member : ASSOCIATE <detached> <affiliated> <lumbering>
intransitive verb : to connect or associate oneself : COMBINE -- usually used with with <he> <these>
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 04:10 pm
Quote:
By the way, while Saddam knew he did not control (i.e., have jurisdiction over) northeastern Iraq, he nonetheless invaded a major city, Irbil, in northeastern Iraq in 1996. It has been alleged that someone in northeastern Iraq invited him to do that.


He did that at the request of the Kurds. Bet you didn't know that, did you?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 05:05 pm
xingu wrote:
Quote:
By the way, while Saddam knew he did not control (i.e., have jurisdiction over) northeastern Iraq, he nonetheless invaded a major city, Irbil, in northeastern Iraq in 1996. It has been alleged that someone in northeastern Iraq invited him to do that.


He did that at the request of the Kurds. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Which Kurds? They had a few waring factions at that time.
...
...
...
This may help you answer correctly:


Encyclopedia Britannica, IRAQ wrote:
This competition encouraged the Ba'thist regime to attempt to direct affairs in the Kurdish Autonomous Region by various means, including military force. The Iraqi military launched a successful attack against the Kurdish city of Irbil in 1996 and engaged in a consistent policy of ethnic cleansing in areas directly under its control

It would seem that back in 1996 poor ol' Saddam didn't know he ought not try to control anything in the Kurdish Autonomous Zone. I guess he learned so later in say 2002. :wink:
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 06:42 pm
while the u.s. forces have handed control over kurdish territory in iraq to kurdistan regional forces , turkey threatens to invade the territory where - they claim - kurdish nationalists find a haven .
another little prickly problem to solve .
solve one problem , create another one , that seems to be the motto in the middle-east these days .
hbg



KURDISH NEWS REPORT
--------------------------------

Quote:
Iraq's Kurdish provinces take control of their own security 30.5.2007

US forces handed over responsibility for security in Iraq's three Kurdish provinces in Iraqi Kurdistan region to the Kurdistan regional government, Sulaimaniyah, Erbil and Dohuk provinces are ruled by the Kurdistan Regional Government from today.

May 30, 2007

Erbil, Kurdistan region (Iraq), May 30, 2007 ,-- US forces handed over responsibility for security in Iraq's three Kurdish provinces to the Kurdistan regional government Wednesday, in a move that may bolster its separatist ambitions.

While officials said the autonomous region will work closely with the national government in Baghdad, the symbolism of the moment was not lost on the former guerrilla fighters who attended the hand-over ceremony.

"It's a sort of independence," Colonel Shadman Ali of the peshmerga, the Kurdish security force, told AFP. "We are very glad and proud and have been waiting for this day for so long. It gives us a great source of hope."

Sulaimaniyah, Erbil and Dohuk provinces are ruled by the Kurdistan Regional Government, which has its own executive and ministries and has been spared much of the unrest wracking the rest of Iraq.

"Today is another success in the process of rebuilding Iraq," Kurdistan Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani said at the ceremony, which was held at the Erbil convention centre and included a parade of peshmerga soldiers.

"This is the result of the experience of 16 years," he said referring to Kurdistan's history of de facto independence since the 1991 Gulf War weakened Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's grip on the mountainous north.

Seven Iraqi provinces, including Najaf, Muthanna, Dhi Qar and Maysan, now have responsibility for their own security -- a third of the total. The United States hopes to add more as Iraqi forces grow in capability.

"The Kurdistan Regional Government is a good example for security and democracy for all provinces," National Security Advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie said at the ceremony.

"Reinforcing the security of Kurdistan is reinforcing the security of Iraq."

Unlike the rest of the war-torn country, the Kurdish provinces and their comparative security have attracted the interest of foreign investors, which has fuelled a construction boom in the region's cities.

"You're an example for the rest of Iraq," Major General Benjamin Mixon, the commander of US troops in Kurdistan (northern Iraq), told the assembled dignitaries.

Turkey, which has large and restive Kurdish population of its own, has long expressed dissatisfaction with the increasing independence of Iraq's Kurds.

Ankara accuses Iraq of allowing the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) of using the region as a rear-base to launch cross-border attacks, despite the United States listing the group as a terrorist organisation.




source :
KURDS TAKE CONTROL OVER THEIR TERRITORY



THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE REPORTS
-------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Turkish military ready to cross into Iraq, general says

The Associated Press
Thursday, May 31, 2007
ANKARA, Turkey:
Gen. Yasar Buyukanit said the military was ready and awaiting government orders for an incursion, putting pressure on the government to support an offensive that risks straining ties with the United States and sparking tensions with Iraqi Kurds.



Quote:
...accused Turkey's allies of supporting the rebels ... one has to wonder who those ALLIES might be ?





link to complete article :
TURKEY THREATENS IRAQ
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 07:38 pm
Quote:


http://www.traveling-soldier.org/9.06.words.php
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 07:41 pm
Quote:


http://www.traveling-soldier.org/7.06.words.php
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 07:56 pm
Some of the soldiers with some brains are beginning to speak up about the no-win war in Iraq. Bush and his minions will not stop this war - or as they say "cut and run." They're so stupid, they still think there is some semblance of "success" to be had in a civil war and insurgency.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 10:42 am
What leads me to conclude that all these quotes about the Iraqi people hate us and/or want us to leave are malarkey, is the absence of an organized request by a majority of the Iraqi people, or a specific resolution by the Iraqi government requesting us to leave.

Given either request, I'd be 100% in favor of our leaving ASAP. Absent both these requests, I am in favor of persisting in Iraq to exterminate al-Qaeda in Iraq, and training the Iraq military to defend their country themselves without our help.

By the way, to actually exterminate al-Qaeda in Iraq will require that we exterminate their supporters as well as their actual and potential mass murderers of non-murderers.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 05:45 pm
Ican

Try reading the news. The Sunnis are already revolting against AQ. If AQ is to be expelled from Iraq it should be the Iraqis who do it and not us.

Quote:
The U.S. says there's a new trend in Iraq: Sunni tribes rising up against the Sunni terrorists in al Qaeda.


http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/168806.aspx
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 05:48 pm
Remember the good ol' days when bad ass Bush said we would never negotiate with terrorist?

Guess what happens when you get your butt kicked in up to your eyeballs.

Quote:
Odierno: U.S. reaching out to insurgents
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 05:51 pm
These fools can't seem to understand that Iraq and South Korea are not alike, just as WW II and Iraq are not alike.

Quote:
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 05:54 pm
Kurds, Turks and Iranians-should be interesting.

Quote:


http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/01/int11.htm
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 06:01 pm
Interview

Quote:
The World Today - US may collapse as a superpower: analyst

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1939849.htm

Friday, 1 June , 2007
Reporter: Eleanor Hall
ELEANOR HALL: A US military analyst who's served in the armed forces and has written on international affairs for more than two decades, is issuing a warning today about the collapse of the United States as a superpower.

In his latest book, The Mess they Made: the Middle East after Iraq, Gwynne Dyer says there's no doubt that the US will withdraw its troops from Iraq once President George W. Bush leaves office.

But he predicts that already that war has set in motion events that will radically transform not only the Middle East but the role of the United States in the world.

Gwynne Dyer is in Sydney this week and he joined me earlier in the World Today studio.

There've been a series of conflicts in the Middle East over the last 40 years, why do you see this latest war in Iraq as likely to be so transformative for the region?

GWYNNE DYER: Well the Americans actually have never committed troops in the Middle East, never actually fought a war in the Middle East, the United States, before. I think this is having an impact on the American public, comparable to the impact on the American public in the Vietnam War though the casualties are far lower this time. So now, there is developing, a Middle Eastern allergy in American public opinion, rather similar to the South East Asian allergy that you had by the end of the 1960's.

That is transformative because if America is not there enforcing the status quo, the status quo probably collapses. It is very old and shoddy. The regimes of the Arab world, with zero exceptions, except for Iraq, where the Americans overthrew Saddam, have all been in power for at least forty years.

They're all dictatorships or absolute monarchies, most of them are corrupt beyond imagining. So this is a very unstable status quo, maintained by American subsidies, American troops, American guarantees, and when those are withdrawn, I think that there will be very large changes in the Middle East.

ELEANOR HALL: You're certain that all of those will be withdrawn, not just the US troops, but the US subsidies as well?

GWYNNE DYER: Not all and not right away, but enough to create a momentum, in which Congress will be reluctant to vote new funds, Congress will be very suspicious about new commitments to support Arab regimes, and meanwhile the momentum in the streets in the Arab world will be moving very rapidly in the favour of the revolutionaries. And that's what they are, after all, the Islamists, after all, are political revolutionaries, they're not just religious fanatics.

ELEANOR HALL: So what will be the shape of the Middle East at that point?

GWYNNE DYER: I think that you're going to see some, I can't tell you which ones, but some Arab regimes fall in the next five years, fall to Islamists of various variety. Some of them perhaps very radical, some of them less so.
ELEANOR HALL: So what would this mean for terrorism in the West

GWYNNE DYER: I think it would drop. I mean the terrorism in the West has two sources, really, first of all the actual 9/11 attacks were a strategic move by a revolutionary Arab organisation, al-Qaeda, to trick the United States into invading Muslim countries. If you pull the troops out of the Middle East, and the West is no longer occupying Muslim countries, I think the wind goes out of the sails of that particular interpretation.

ELEANOR HALL: There's not a danger that having Islamist republics in the Middle East might inspire terrorism around the world?

GWYNNE DYER: No, I don't see why, because I mean, once they're in power, what do they need to bother us for?

ELEANOR HALL: You suggest that the Iraq war could also transform the role of the US in the world, that it's actually done far more damage to US power and prestige than the Vietnam War. What are you predicting for the US?

GWYNNE DYER: Well, think about the Vietnam War for a moment. The United States suffered a humiliating defeat and frankly the US armed forces were a complete shambles for 10 years after that. And yet, within five years, it was all forgiven and forgotten. And in the world at large by the end of the 1970's, the United States was back as the leader of the free world - trusted, beloved by all, well, by most. That could happen again, if the US pulls out of Iraq, as soon as Mr Bush leaves power.

Which is what I think will happen. About 10 minutes after the inauguration of the next President in January 2009, the evacuation starts. However, there is the possibility that the United States before Mr Bush leaves will attack Iran. And if that happens, I think we have a very different outcome. Former National Security Adviser in the United States, Zbigniew Brzezinski is on record as saying if the United States attacks Iran, it will lose its place in the world. And I think he's right.

ELEANOR HALL: What do you think the odds are though, of the United States attacking Iran?

GWYNNE DYER: I have no idea, I change in my view from week to week on this, which presumably means they're about 50/50. I mean, the forces are in place, the runways have been lengthened, you know, the extra carriers are in the Gulf.

ELEANOR HALL: And yet there are constant denials from the Bush administrationÂ…

GWYNNE DYER: Well of course there are, but that's what you'd have in this situation, so it means nothing. Could all be bluff, and I hope it is, but if it isn't, then it is imaginable that the Bush administration decides to roll the dice one last time. If they attacked Iran, they would lose, and of course, the Iranians would close the Gulf to the tanker traffic, and so suddenly there's a global economic crisis, and then in two or three months we get America off the hook, somehow and get the Gulf reopened. But by that time, frankly, I think NATO will have broken up, I think the Russians will have decided they'd better make a deal with the Chinese, it would change the look of the chessboard very dramatically.

ELEANOR HALL: Why would it change it so dramatically, when you're saying that the Iraq war, you're expecting that the world and the American people will forgive the Bush administration, why wouldn't they equally forgive it for a disastrous war in Iran, were that to happen?

GWYNNE DYER: It's the rogue state phenomenon. I mean, this could be another unprovoked, illegal American attack on a sovereign state. It would actually convince a great many people that the United States is congenitally a rogue state.

A senior Japanese diplomat said to me, last year, he said "You know the United States is a twelve year old with a shotgun". And what he meant was that as the United States begins to suspect that it's past the apogee of its trajectory, its on the way down, as a great power no longer on the way up or at the top securely, that it is becoming extremely erratic, that is lashing out in all sorts of ways to try and slow or stop what it perceives as insipient decline.

So there is concern that we're getting into rather deep water here, that we may be going into an era where the Americans become highly unpredictable and quite dangerous.

ELEANOR HALL: Gwynne Dyer, thanks very much for speaking to us.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 06:47 pm
xingu wrote:
Ican

... The Sunnis are already revolting against AQ. If AQ is to be expelled from Iraq it should be the Iraqis who do it and not us.

...

If they can do it by themselves without our help, we should let them do it. If they want our help doing it, then we should help them do it.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2007 09:27 am
What is victory in Iraq?

Quote:
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
Short term , Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.

Medium term , Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.

Longer term , Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
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 0.06 seconds on 07/27/2025 at 03:50:47