9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 07:51 pm
The Endgame in Iraq ... link

Quote:
What happens when you take a 40-year-old CIA memo on losing a war and replace the word "Vietnam" with the word "Iraq"? The result is a set of conclusions that are just as true today.


http://66.7.151.19/images/FP-Memo2.jpg

Quote:


you may need to register (free) to read the memo - I think it's worth a look

(Foreign Policy is an interesting publication, always something to reflect on)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 08:07 pm
The irony of this whole mess is that both wars were started on false information. Many died for what? American security?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 07:29 am
From Juan Cole;

Quote:
Everyday Apocolypse in Iraq
War of the Mosques
142 Dead on Tuesday


142 persons were killed or found dead on Tuesday, and Wednesday morning two Sunni mosques in towns south of Baghdad were blown up.

On Tuesday, a huge truck bomb in Baghdad blew up a Shiite mosque dedicated to an important religious figure and killed 87 persons, wounding 214. This site was dedicated to Muhammad bin Uthman bin Sa`id al-`Amri, the second of at least four Deputies (wakil) who Shiites believe acted as an intermediary between the Hidden Twelfth Imam during his first or "minor" Disappearance. Shiites believe that the Prophet Muhammad should have been succeeded by his close family and descendants. The 12th Imam, a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, they say, went into hiding as a small child in 874 AD after the death of his father, Hasan al-Askari, who had been put under house arrest by the Abbasid Caliphate. During the "minor disappearance" the Twelfth Imam was said to send letters to the Shiite community, and for many years sent them, they say, through Muhammad b. Uthman.

Many Iraqi Shiites, poor, bewildered, under siege by multiple political and military forces, have become millenarians and believe that the hidden Twelfth Imam will now come back any day as the Mahdi, the apocalyptic Guided One, who will restore the world to justice in preparation for the Judgment Day.

The Sunni Arab guerrillas know that this millenarian hope and fervor sustains many Shiites and that they are touchy about it. That is why that have twice bombed the shrine at Samarra, dedicated to the father and grandfather of the Imam Mahdi, and now have hit in such a powerful and gruesome way the mosque-shrine of the Imam Mahdi's second Deputy. (A traditionalist account of the Deputies of the Imam can be found here).

Hope for the coming of the promised one is all most Shiites have left, and the desecration of sacred sites associated with the Mahdi (analogous to the return of Christ for Christians) is especially likely to set off reprisal attacks against Sunnis. Since the guerrilla strategy in Iraq is to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war as a way of making the country ungovernable and forcing the Americans out, attacks on symbols of the Twelfth Imam are especially effective.

One unfortunate side effect of this shrine-destruction strategy is that the shrines are revered in Iran, as well, and President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is a millenarian especially devoted to the cult of the Twelfth Imam. Sentiments of the Iranian public are also being stirred by these attacks (not to mention Hizbullah in Lebanon, and Shiites in Pakistan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, who increasingly blame the US for the desecrations). Religious politics is politics, and the US is being wrongfooted in a major way here.

The signs of the coming of the Twelfth Imam in Shiite tradition are as follows:

'The Sign consists of the following traits: the people will neglect prayer, squander the divinity which is conferred on them, legalize untruths, practice usury, accept bribes, construct huge edifices, sell religion to win this lower world, employ idiots, consult with women, break family ties, obey passion and consider insignificant the letting of blood. Magnanimity will be considered as weakness and injustice as glory, princesses will be debauched and ministers will be oppressors, intellectuals will be traitors and the reader of the Koran vicious. False witness will be brought openly and immorality proclaimed in loud voices. A word of promise will be slander, sin and exaggeration. The sacred Books will be ornate, the mosques disguised, the minarets extended. Criminals will be praised, the lines of combat narrowed, hearts in disaccord and pacts broken. Women, greedy for the riches of this lower world, will involve themselves in the business of their husbands; the vicious voices of the man will be loud and will be listened to. The most ignoble of the people will become leaders, the debauched will be believed for fear of the Evil they will cause, the liar will be considered as truthful and the traitor as trustworthy. They will resort to singers and musical instruments...and women will horse ride, they will resemble men and the men will resemble women. The people will prefer the activities of this lower-world to those of the Higher-World and will cover with lambskin the hearts of wolves."


Muqtada al-Sadr has alleged that the entire point of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was to keep this decadent situation in place and to forestall the coming of the Mahdi by planting military bases around Iraq and the Persian Gulf. He says that the US Pentagon has an enormous file on the Mahdi.

In orther words, the US and militant Sunni Arabs are felt by many Iraqi Shiites to be playing the role of Dajjal or "Anti-Christ", a figure whose purpose is to forestall the coming of the Imam Mahdi. Shiite tradition holds that the Mahdi will come together with the Return of Christ, and that the returned Christ will kill the Dajjal. (Ironically, some of the US troops fighting the Shiite millenarians may be evangelicals who also believe that the Return of Christ is near; Iraq is a wonderland for apocalytpicism).

Ideologically, the shrine bombings of the past week and a half are far more important than any mere military maneuvers. If the US cannot arrange for the shrine of the Imam Mahdi's Deputy in Baghdad itself to be protected better than that, it will never succeed in Iraq's religious politics, no matter how many ink spots it creates.

The US offensive in Baquba, the capital of Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, is intended to root out Salafi Jihadi forces among the Sunnis that have come to dominate entire neighborhoods and entire towns in the province, which lies between Baghdad and Iran. But most of the forces involved seem to be American and Shiite (the 2,000 'paramilitary police' mentioned are surely from the Badr Corps paramilitary of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council [SII], the leading Shiite party with links to Iran). Diyala has a Sunni majority, and a lot of the problems in that province began politically in the first place because SIIC has dominated it politically. In the short term, this operation may 'pacify' Baquba. But likely it will inflict tremendous damage on the city, will cause a lot of the 300,000 or so inhabitants to flee and become refugees, and will likely not change the political situation, which is Shiite dominance of Sunnis along with some Kurdish separatist plans for parts of the province. Falluja had 2/3s of its buildings destroyed and tens of thousands of its former inhabitants are living in tent cities in the desert with bad water, and Falluja is still not secure--kidnappings, shootings, mortar attacks, even car bombings are all still taking place there and in its environs.

There is also heavy fighting between Mahdi Army forces and Iraqi government troops in Nasiriya in the south, with British troops allegedly giving some support to the government side. Typically the 'Iraqi government' forces are actually drawn from the Badr Corps and so this is in a way two Shiite militias fighting one another. These clashes have reinforced the determination of the Sadr Movement MPs to suspend their participation in the parliament, which probably therefore lacks a quorum for the rest of the summer. The Sadrists say an agreement has been reached with the governor of Nasiriyah to end the fighing.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 09:29 am
Quote:
A vivid account of life inside Baghdad's Green Zone won Britain's richest nonfiction book prize on Monday.

"Imperial Life in the Emerald City," by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, bureau chief in Baghdad for The Washington Post from April 2003 to October 2004, took the $60,000 Samuel Johnson Prize for Nonfiction.

The book paints a picture of waste, incompetence and thwarted intentions within the Coalition Provisional Authority appointed to run U.S.-occupied Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It contrasts life in the heavily fortified Green Zone with the chaos unfolding outside.

Human rights lawyer Helena Kennedy, who headed the award's judging panel, said the book was "up there with the greatest reportage of the last 50 years" and praised Chandrasekaran's writing as "cool, exact and never overstated."

http://www.chron.com:80/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4899857.html
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 09:46 am
To see Juan Cole's interview with Rajiv Chandrasekaran go here and here.

Some excerpts;
Quote:
Cole: You were in Iraq in 2002 through March before the war in 2003. I know it is like comparing apples and oranges, but can you characterize what it was like then in Baghdad compared to what it became later? Have any political, social or cultural patterns you saw in 2002 come back?

RC: Fear. Before the war, Iraqis were petrified that one wrong step would result in arrest and imprisonment. Today, as we all know so well, the Iraqis live under a very different sort of fear. In fact, many of the Iraqis I know well say they are far more afraid now than they ever were before the war. Back then, if you kept your mouth shut and your head down, you'd be fine. Now, danger lurks everywhere.


Quote:
Cole: You make the important observation that the American CPA staff was not only isolated in the Green Zone, but that the Iraqis with whom they were in contact were "Green Zone" Iraqis who told them what they wanted to hear. Did anyone in the Green Zone have a realistic view of life in the Red Zone?

RC: Yes. There were several CPA staffers who did have a good idea of what life was like on the other side of the walls. Among them was John Agresto, the neoconservative who told me he felt "mugged by reality." He would travel in Baghdad in a beat-up sedan, driven by an Iraqi, not Western guards. He wore his flak jacket under his shirt and suit coat. And he saw what Iraqi universities were really like -- how they were gutted by looters and then taken over by religious fundamentalists. That's why he became so depressed.


Quote:
Let me quote a bit from the last chapter of Imperial Life in the Emerald City:

Quote:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 09:59 am
Most of the candidates running for president believes the US needs to increase our military - including Clinton and Obama. Their thinking is all wrong; we can't win the hearts and minds of Muslims with more tanks and airplanes. Any change must come from within; as have some moderate Muslim countries of today. Spending more US money on the military only increases the insecurity for everybody. When will we ever learn that military might and superpower is destructive to peace. It seems Vietnam and Iraq's lessons have been ignored.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 11:12 am
Will the surge succeed?


2 Sunni mosques attacked in Iraq I think these destruction of mosques only inflames more people, and the chances of "reconciliation" grows further apart.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 12:04 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bush wants cuts to veterans' health care.

Your post is malarkey!

Bush will cease being president as of January 20, 2009. Today is June 20, 2007. Bush cannot change anything "two years from now." Assuming future cut backs is not equivalent to making future cutbacks.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 01:02 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
President Bush spoke to the American Legion today, claiming that "support of our veterans has been a high priority in my administration," and that one of his priorities is "making sure that our veterans have got good, decent, quality healthcare."

Watch it:


President Bush should save his rhetoric. In an interview with National Public Radio, even American Legion National Commander Paul Morin, a regular political ally of the White House, pointed out that Bush has consistently skimped on veterans funding. "We are not pleased with the budget for the military and for the VA hospitals for our veterans," Morin said. "I blame the President and Congress for insufficient funding of the VA health care system."

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
A look at the facts back up Morin's claims about Bush's short-changing of veterans:

White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter."

Bush raises health care costs for veterans. For the fifth year in a row, Bush's budget has attempted to raise health care costs on 1.3 million veterans, calling for "new enrollment fees and higher drug co-payments for some veterans."

Bush administration has claimed veterans benefits are "hurtful" to national security. In 2005, the Wall Street Journal noted the growing cost of veterans benefits due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon's response was to complain that it would "rather use [the funds] to help troops fighting today." "The amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself," says David Chu, the Pentagon's undersecretary for personnel and readiness.

Tthis post of yours is also malarkey. Not increasing veteran's benefits is not equivalent to cutting veteran's benefits.

Whatever happens with regard to veterans benefits is controlled by the US Congress. That Congress has been controlled by a Democrat majority since January 2007. That majority has said nothing about increasing veteran's benefits
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 01:06 pm
ican, Just because the democrats haven't incrased veteran's benefits is putting the issue 180 degrees away from the president who continues to say "support our troops." You'll never "get it" if your life depended on it. You're too f....g ignorant.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 01:15 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, Just because the democrats haven't incrased veteran's benefits is putting the issue 180 degrees away from the president who continues to say "support our troops." You'll never "get it" if your life depended on it. You're too f....g ignorant.

Providing insufficient funding is not equivalent to making cuts in funding.

There has not been any presidential veto of Congressional increases in veteran's benefits. Thus, whatever happens with regard to veterans benefits is controlled by the US Congress. That Congress has been controlled by a Democrat majority since January 2007. That majority has said nothing about increasing veteran's benefits
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 01:20 pm
This article is dated 2005, more than a year before the democrats won the majority in congress:


Budget plan cuts veterans' benefits

LES BLUMENTHAL; The News Tribune
Last updated: February 25th, 2005 08:51 AM


WASHINGTON - More than 10,000 Washington state veterans could face a $1,000-a-year increase for their medical care under a Bush administration budget proposal, a veterans advocacy group says.
And state officials warn that the White House spending plan could force out roughly half of the 600 residents at Washington's three veterans homes, possibly resulting in the closure of one of them.

"It's almost hopeless for the average vet to get taken care of," said John Kenny, who fought as a machine gunner in the Philippines and New Guinea during World War II. "It's a scandal."

The administration has proposed charging some veterans a $250 annual fee for access to medical services provided by the Veterans Administration and more than doubling the copayment for prescription drugs from $7 to $15. The new fees would apply to single veterans making more than $26,000 annually and married veterans making about $30,000 annually.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 01:22 pm
This one is dated 2002:


Published on Sunday, December 22, 2002 by the Boston Globe
Frustrated Veterans Accuse Bush of Breaking Promise
by Wayne Washington

WASHINGTON - The leaders of America's most prominent veterans organizations say that President Bush is failing to honor past commitments to military men and women even as he prepares to send a new generation of soldiers and sailors into combat.

The administration's support for rescinding lifetime health benefits for World War II and Korean War veterans and continuing problems at veterans hospitals stand as proof, veteran leaders say, that America is more than willing to lean on its soldiers during times of war but tolerates them serving as political props in peacetime.

Coming after President Clinton, who avoided service in Vietnam and had a strained relationship with the military, veterans leaders say they had high expectations for Bush, who served in the National Guard and whose father was a fighter pilot during World War Two.

''I'm terribly frustrated and extremely angry,'' said retired Air Force Colonel George ''Bud'' Day, a Republican who won the Medal of Honor and was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam with Senator John McCain of Arizona.

Day said Bush is violating his oft-repeated campaign pledge to veterans: ''A promise made is a promise kept.''
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 01:25 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Most of the candidates running for president believes the US needs to increase our military - including Clinton and Obama. Their thinking is all wrong; we can't win the hearts and minds of Muslims with more tanks and airplanes. Any change must come from within; as have some moderate Muslim countries of today. Spending more US money on the military only increases the insecurity for everybody. When will we ever learn that military might and superpower is destructive to peace. It seems Vietnam and Iraq's lessons have been ignored.

We can win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims by helping them exterminate extremist Muslims.

We can lose and trample the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims by deserting them in their (and our) fight with extremist Muslims (e.g., al-Qaeda).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 01:28 pm
Bush FY 2006 Budget Proposal Might Mean 'Deep Cuts' in Veterans' Health CareMain Category: Public Health News
Article Date: 13 Feb 2005 - 22:00 PDT
| email to a friend | printer friendly | view or write opinions |




President Bush "faces almost impossible political choices if he is to keep his pledge to reduce spending over the next five years," and unpublished White House budget estimates indicate that the president "cannot reach his budget goals without making deep cuts in programs that have strong political support," such as health care for veterans and scientific research, the... New York Times reports. According to the White House budget estimates, discretionary spending, adjusted for inflation, would decrease by 16%, or $65 billion annually, through 2010. The fiscal year 2006 budget proposal that Bush released this week does not include specific spending reductions for future fiscal years. However, White House budget estimates indicate that to maintain current spending levels through 2010, spending for health care for veterans would have to decrease by 16% after inflation and spending for basic scientific research would have to decrease by 13%. Joshua Bolten, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, has dismissed such concerns. He said on Thursday, "I don't think it does anybody any good to look at these out-year projections and conclude from them that those programs are going to be cut."

'Biggest Challenge' Political?
According to the Times, Bush would have to "cut many if not most programs other than those involving the military and domestic security," and the "biggest challenge confronting Mr. Bush will involve programs with powerful political supporters and broad emotional appeal to voters." For example, Bush currently faces opposition from veterans over a provision in his budget proposal that would require higher fees for health care (Andrews, New York Times, 2/11). The budget proposal would require about two million higher-income veterans without service-related conditions to pay a $250 annual fee, as well as an $8 increase in copayments for prescription drugs, for FY 2006. Under the proposal, total funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs would increase to $68.2 billion, or by 1%. The budget proposal would eliminate federal funds for a program that provides long-term care for veterans and reduce funds for VA nursing home care by $351 million, which could lead to the elimination of about 5,000 nursing home beds administered by the department (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 2/9). "If Mr. Bush wanted to prevent any real cuts in veterans' health care, he would have to dig through other parts of the domestic budget," but White House budget estimates "already envision cuts after inflation of $13 billion in education, $8 billion in health care, $2.8 billion in criminal justice assistance and $3 billion in housing assistance," the Times reports. "It's nice to say these are only formulaic numbers," Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said, adding, "But the administration is looking to lock in the aggregates by law for five years. Spending in one area has to be offset by cuts in other areas" (New York Times, 2/11).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 01:32 pm
This was approved by the republican congress in 2003:



Veterans Benefits Cut
by David Smith






You see, ican, ten years from 2003 affects those veterans until 2013. There's not much the democratic congress can do when they still don't have the "majority" to approve legislation.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 01:56 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:


This one is dated 2002:

Quote:
Published on Sunday, December 22, 2002 by the Boston Globe
Frustrated Veterans Accuse Bush of Breaking Promise
by Wayne Washington


...

This was approved by the republican congress in 2003:

Quote:
Veterans Benefits Cut
by David Smith


...

This article is dated 2005, more than a year before the democrats won the majority in congress:

Quote:
Budget plan cuts veterans' benefits

LES BLUMENTHAL; The News Tribune
Last updated: February 25th, 2005 08:51 AM


...

Bush FY 2006 Budget Proposal Might Mean 'Deep Cuts' in Veterans' Health CareMain Category:

Quote:
Public Health News
Article Date: 13 Feb 2005 - 22:00 PDT

The Morose Opinion Media are not reliable sources of information about what the Bush administration has done or has not done. If during the period 2002 through 2005, the Democrat Congressional minority had spoken out about this alleged problem regarding insufficient veteran's benefits, these accusations would have had some credibility.

Furthermore, the lack of comment after 2006 by the Democrat Congressional majority regarding insufficient veteran's benefits, is further evidence your accusations are based on mere media opinion.

Oh yes! One more thing. The total derived from canceling all those earmarks passed by the previous Congress (and not vetoed by the President), and not passing any of the new ones proposed by the current Congress, could easily provide a significant source of funding for veteran's benefits, if the current Congress were to pass the legislation authorizing same.

My point in this debate is that the current Congress as well as the current President are responsible for denying veterans adequate benefits whether that's due to cuts or lack of increases.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 02:18 pm
Why is the Morose Opinion Media not reliable? You must provide the evidence on the reasons why they are not reliable. General statements by ican counts for zero.

Is the decmocrats speaking out against prolonging the Iraq war credible?
Since when does the opposing party's voice matter when legislation is bulldozed in congress and/or the president overrides it?


ican: Furthermore, the lack of comment after 2006 by the Democrat Congressional majority regarding insufficient veteran's benefits, is further evidence your accusations are based on mere media opinion.

Talk about BullShet, this is one of the prime medal winners.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 02:22 pm
I keep coming back to this thread full of hope, but Ican is still here. Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 02:32 pm
mctag :

we NEED ican , or we'd just be preaching to the converted !
hbg
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 07/21/2025 at 02:33:38