9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 08:58 am
Rendition flights, or exporting of torture:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2098266,00.html
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 10:44 am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19099768/site/newsweek

Quote:


There is no plan for success.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 11:02 am
Bush has never been "concrete" about anything; although his rhetoric sounds solid, his actions take on a 180 degree swing from them.

1. Support our troops. sounds good, doesn't it? He cut veteran's benefit and services budget beginning next year.
2. We are going to have the biggest reconstruction project our country has ever seen. New Orleans is still waiting.
3. And then, we also have:

"I will restore honor and integrity to the White House"
"I'm a compassionate conservative"
"Leave no child behind"
"I'm a uniter, not a divider"
"President of all the people, not just those who voted for me"
"A reformer with results"
"It's the people's money, not the government's"
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 07:54 pm
When the Iraqis decide they can protect themselves without our help, and their government asks us to leave, we must remove our military from Iraq as rapidly as we are able, but only after they ask us to leave.

In the meantime, we must exterminate as many of the al-Qaeda in Iraqi as we are able.

Quote:

9/11 Commission Report, September 20, 2004

2 THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEW TERRORISM

2.1 A DECLARATION OF WAR
In February 1998, the 40-year-old Saudi exile Usama Bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician, Ayman al Zawahiri, arranged from their Afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of a "World Islamic Front." A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority, but neither Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the "individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."1

Three months later, when interviewed in Afghanistan by ABC-TV, Bin Ladin enlarged on these themes.2 He claimed it was more important for Muslims to kill Americans than to kill other infidels. "It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities," he said. Asked whether he approved of terrorism and of attacks on civilians, he replied: "We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets."


General Tommy Franks wrote:

American Soldier, by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

page 483:
"The air picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges an a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Isla terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile] bashing. Soon Special Forces and [Special Mission Unit] operators, leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted."


Quote:

Capture of al-Qaeda mastermind of Golden Mosque explosion
...
Abu Qudama operated under terrorist cell leader Haitham al-Badri.

Al-Badri was "a known terrorist," a member of Ansar al-Sunna before he joined terror group al Qaeda in Iraq, al-Rubaie said.

However, Iraqi authorities "were not aware of his being the mastermind behind the golden mosque explosion" until Abu Qudama's arrest, al-Rubaie said.
"The sole reason behind his action was to drive a wedge between the Shiites and Sunnis and to ignite and trigger a sectarian war in this country," al-Rubaie said, referring to al-Badri.


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.


UN wrote:
UN CHARTER Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense 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-defense 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.


It's long past time for you all to wake up and grow up!

George Bush is not the primary problem. Exterminating al-Qaeda wherever it established and establishes itself is the primary problem.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 08:58 pm
Quote:
George Bush is not the primary problem. Exterminating al-Qaeda wherever it established and establishes itself is the primary problem.



I/We feel the war in Iraq is exacerbating the problem instead of helping it.

There has been some evidence presented to support this position, especially over the last year, and I wish you'd seriously consider our viewpoint.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 02:05 am
"There was/is no exit strategy from Iraq, because we never intended to leave. Fourteen permanent military bases are being built"

-TV documentary last night.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 08:06 am
IS THE RUMSFELD ERA COMING TO AN END ?
from the NYT :


Quote:




AND ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST ...

(under new management , same old lousy service)
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 05:53 am
Quote:
Informed Comment
Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute


Sunday, June 10, 2007

Paris Hilton & Iraqi Prisoners


American cable news has been fixated on the jailing of socialite Paris Hilton for the past week, on grounds that she twice violated the probation sentence she earlier received for drunk driving. They interrupted coverage of world leaders at the G8. They briefly spliced in Gates's decision not to reappoint Peter Pace as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. A new frenzy broke out with every tiny twist . She was brave, she was weeping, she was mentally fragile. She was released, she was rejailed, she shouted it was unfair and cried, she was undergoing psychiatric evaluation.

Just for a little perspective, we could consider the news from Iraq on Saturday. Incoming mortar fire from guerrillas hit Bucca prison, killing 6 inmates and wounding 50.

The US military is holding 19000 Iraqis, 16000 of them at Bucca. Although most are guerrillas or their helpers, a lot of them were picked up because they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Once arrested, an inmate often cannot clear himself for months or years. I don't think they have access to attorneys. No one cares if they are depressed. At Abu Ghraib earlier on, some inmates were systematically tortured. It is unlear if all such practices have ceased.

Some Iraqi women have been held in this way. Some were essentially hostages, taken to make them reveal where their husbands or fathers were or to guarantee their good behavior. Their reputations were shot, since Iraqis think Americans are sex fiends and wouldn't trust the virtue of a woman who had been in their custody. The unmarried among them are likely doomed to be spinsters.

http://www.juancole.com/graphics/iraqwomanpris.jpg

American television never mentions that the US has 19000 Iraqis in jail, or that some have been women, or that some are innocent, or how they feel about being in prison.

So is Paris Hilton being given special treatment by our media? We all are, folks.


source
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 10:00 am
ican seems the only one oblivious to the fact that the administration and military generals are now looking at a long-term occupation in Iraq, but cutting our forces down to 1/3d of the current level.

ican is too ignorant to even keep up with current news. He spouts his misinformation like he's part of this government or in the general staff.

The removal of our troops from Iraq will take about one year; that's what the logistic general says - or by the end of next year.

ican could never figure out why Bush continued to build those 14 permanent bases in Iraq, nor the biggest American embassy. His blindness is truly pathetic.

Some people just can't see what's in front of them. He's been hooked by the Bush rhetoric, and will sink with him.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 10:06 am
BTW, I agree with the current strategy to remove most of our troops from Iraq. Since we brought this chaos to Iraq, we must continue to help the Iraqis until some stability comes to their land. We have that much responsibility to the Iraqis.

I'm not so sure this situation is similar to Korea, because the makeup of the "enemy" is much different. Comparisons are useless IMHO.

Our presence should primarily be one to assist the Iraqi government without imposing our will. We can also help them by continuing diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors.

I believe the chaos that exists today will decrease once we begin to leave.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 11:02 am
The reason the Bush administration uses the Korea model is to condition the American minds to indefinite time in Iraq and away from troop withdrawal or exit strategies. There is no comparison to the situation in Korea to that of Iraq.

50 More Years in Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 12:21 pm
Murtha's position, which I think is right, is that we should remove all soldiers to beyond the horizon. Thus, we could have troops at the ready in, say, Kuwait, where they would be out of harm's way.

When Iraqis are asked what would happen should our soldiers be removed, they reply that the Iraqi people are flexible and would work things out. They favor removal because we are an irritant, making things worse for the country overall.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 01:21 pm
Iraq bridge collapse traps U.S. soldiers

Quote:
MAHMOUDIYA, Iraq - An apparent suicide car bomber took aim at a U.S. convoy carrying demolition experts on Sunday, collapsing a major highway overpass south of Baghdad and trapping American soldiers in the rubble.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 01:25 pm
Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are sitting ducks. The insurgents need only sit in ambush, or set up roadside traps. There is little risk to the insurgents because we typically do not pursue those who hit and run.

But I guess Bush can't admit that we lost and do the right thing -- leave the country.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 02:31 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
George Bush is not the primary problem. Exterminating al-Qaeda wherever it established and establishes itself is the primary problem.



I/We feel the war in Iraq is exacerbating the problem instead of helping it.

There has been some evidence presented to support this position, especially over the last year, and I wish you'd seriously consider our viewpoint.

Cycloptichorn

I have repeatedly seriously considered your viewpoint that: "the war in Iraq is exacerbating the problem instead of helping it."

I have repeatedly claimed that the way we are fighting "the war in Iraq is exacerbating the problem instead of helping it."

Exterminating al-Qaeda in Iraq should have been and now should be our primary objective, and training the Iraq military should have been and now should be our secondary objective. Unfortunately the reverse is true.
The same should be true for Afghanistan: exterminating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is primary and training the Afghanistan military is secondary.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 02:49 pm
ican wrote :

Quote:
exterminating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is primary


how is that to be accomplished when al-qaeda fighters move freely between afghanistan and pakistan ?
the pakistani president seems not to be committed to expell the al-qaeda fighters - they are really occupying a "no-man's-land" not under the control of the pakistani authorities .
hbg


Quote:
'Pak tribal areas safe haven for al Qaeda'
Washington, June 9 (PTI): Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan have become a "safe haven" for al Qaeda and Taliban militants, and Washington should prod Islamabad to be more aggressive and vigorous in dealing with the lawless areas, a top US security official has said.

Lt.Gen. Douglas Lute, who has been nominated as the Assistant to the President for Iraq and Afghanistan, said "Pakistan is going through a turbulent time here. And the tribal area along their western border have become, unfortunately, a safe haven for al Qaeda."

"You said they're searching for one in Iraq. Well, they've got one now in western Pakistan... (President Pervez) Musharraf's got an election coming up. So he's got to deal with that. But, look, we've got a right to expect them to be more aggressive and vigorous in dealing with those lawless tribal areas," the Deputy National Security Advisor told the Senate Armed Services Committee.


see also : AFGHANISTAN - DOES IT STILL MATTER ?

it seems that both taliban and al-qaeda fighters are moving around at their own speed and will ... good luck trying to oust them .





source :
AL-QAEDA FIGHTERS IN AFGHANISTAN
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 05:35 pm
US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents, paper to report RAW STORY
Published: Sunday June 10, 2007

A story slated for Monday's New York Times by veteran Iraq correspondent John Burns will reveal that the U.S. military has confirmed that it is arming Sunni insurgent factions to try to contain al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, RAW STORY has learned.

A second story, according to those familiar with the paper, will discuss new terror rules "aimed at regulating licensing and control of small boats and airplanes."

DEVELOPING...
link
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 05:51 pm
I read that the Iraqis don't like the al-Qaida people any more than they like us. Should we pull out, the Iraqis would get rid of al-Qaida pretty quickly.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 07:25 pm
hamburger wrote:
ican wrote :

Quote:
exterminating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is primary


how is that to be accomplished when al-qaeda fighters move freely between afghanistan and pakistan ?
the pakistani president seems not to be committed to expell the al-qaeda fighters - they are really occupying a "no-man's-land" not under the control of the pakistani authorities .
hbg

Quote:
'Pak tribal areas safe haven for al Qaeda'
Washington, June 9 (PTI): Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan have become a "safe haven" for al Qaeda and Taliban militants, and Washington should prod Islamabad to be more aggressive and vigorous in dealing with the lawless areas, a top US security official has said.

Lt.Gen. Douglas Lute, who has been nominated as the Assistant to the President for Iraq and Afghanistan, said "Pakistan is going through a turbulent time here. And the tribal area along their western border have become, unfortunately, a safe haven for al Qaeda."

"You said they're searching for one in Iraq. Well, they've got one now in western Pakistan... (President Pervez) Musharraf's got an election coming up. So he's got to deal with that. But, look, we've got a right to expect them to be more aggressive and vigorous in dealing with those lawless tribal areas," the Deputy National Security Advisor told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

...
it seems that both taliban and al-qaeda fighters are moving around at their own speed and will ... good luck trying to oust them .
...

Exterminating al-Qaeda wherever it established and establishes itself is the primary problem.

Al-Qaeda's primary defense tactic is to embed its members with non-murderers (i.e., in the midst of non-murdering children, women, and men) whom it threatens to murder if they aid in any manner those who would exterminate them. This tactic has enabled al-Qaeda to proliferate, because they know that those who would exterminate them (e.g., the USA) will not do that if it can reasonably be predicted that non-murderers will be exterminated along with al-Qaeda members. Consequently al-Qaeda members kill thousands a month and instigate the murder of at least that same number by causing civil war among those related to those al-Qaeda murders.

So how shall al-Qaeda be exterminated?

1. The USA must announce to the entire population of the middle east that beginning a date certain the USA's special forces will exterminate al-Qaeda wherever they find them including those non-murderers with whom they are embedded.

2. The USA must also announce to the entire population of the middle east that for as long as is desired, it will provide safe harbor to non-murders who seek and obtain the protection of the USA, and who provide the USA special forces information about the locatuion of al-Qaeda members.

3. No country in the middle east shall be excluded.

Based on prior experience the non-murderers will choose to cooperate with the USA special forces out of fear of their risk of being killed if they do not cooperate with the USA.

This is admittedly a ruthless plan.

So what shall it be:

A. Ruthless plan that results in the eventual extermination of al-Qaeda, but kills say 10 non-murderers for every exterminated al-Qaeda member?

B. Continuation surge plan that results in the steady growth of al-Qaeda membership and results in the killing of say 100 non-murderers for every exterminated al-Qaeda member?

C. Denial of probable consequences plan that calls for the USA to leave the middle east as quickly as it can after at least two-thirds the USA Congress passes a resolution commanding the USA to leave the middle east, regardless of the number of non-murderers--middle eastern and western--that are subsequently murdered by al-Qaeda?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 07:28 pm
Advocate wrote:

...
Should we pull out, the Iraqis would get rid of al-Qaida pretty quickly.

"in your dreams."
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 0.05 seconds on 07/25/2025 at 08:44:18