| Author |
Message |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 2696
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 4:15 pm: | |
MikeB:
I read your post and its certainly well reasoned. However, I still object to the way we were brought into the war, and the apparent duplicity about how that occurred.
You make the argument that we needed to do something about the middle east's hatred of the US. That is absolutely correct. I just don't think that killing people there, whether those people be in the miitary, civilians, or what is an appropriate way to do that. It may scare them, but then again, given the types of people there, it may just provide fodder for the crazies. Time will indeed tell if in the long term this was a smart thing to do. I suspect not, you the opposite.
Art |
Mike B (Srt_mike)
Member
Username: Srt_mike
Post Number: 366
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 3:58 pm: | |
Telson,
You've become a troll. All you do is cut and paste from other articles, refuse to get into a real debate, and throw insults towards anyone that challenges you.
Your credibility has been destroyed here - time to go home. |
Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member
Username: Pitbull_trader
Post Number: 85
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 8:13 am: | |
"Iraq, once a favoured American ally
During the Reagan period, the US re-established diplomatic relations with Iraq, and considered Baghdad a bastion against �Islamic revolution�, says Alain Gresh
"He's used chemical weapons against his own people and against his neighbours. He's invaded his neighbours. He's killed thousands of his own people." Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor to President George W Bush, lists the "compelling" arguments that, she says, are pushing the United States to intervene in Iraq and overthrow President Saddam Hussein (1). The allegations are irrefutable: in September 1980 the Iraqi regime attacked Iran, starting one of the most bloody conflicts since the second world war; in difficulty, it effectively used chemical weapons and then gassed 5,000 Iraqi Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.
Did the US make war on the tyrant then? The US press has confirmed that, at the time, about 60 US officers had secretly given the Iraqi army "detailed information on Iranian deployments" and were discussing battle plans. US advisors, told of the use of gas, did not object to it "because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival" (2).
In 1984 the Reagan administration re-established diplomatic relations with Baghdad (interrupted by the 1967 war), deleted it from its list of countries supporting terrorism and promoted it to the rank of bastion against the "Islamic revolution". When George Bush Senior became president in January 1989, he made a statement both stupid and cynical: "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The United States government should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behaviour and to increase our influence."
At this time US companies, with the backing of the State Department, were exporting to Iraq products that could be used to make biological weapons (3). The "international community", so keen during the 1990s to uncover the history of Iraq's programme of weapons of mass destruction, never investigated foreign companies that helped Iraq. Many western governments - including the US, Germany and France - had been involved.
In the US there is now vigorous debate about the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But it is more about means than ends. The question is not should we do it? but how should we do it? The reluctance of the US' European and Arab allies - the Arabs troubled by the total impunity of the government of Ariel Sharon - will doubtless do no more than delay this "first preventative war" of the 21st century (see The hawk doctrine).
Officially the operation would target Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. After all, United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 of 3 April 1991 insisted on the county's disarmament. Article 14 said these measures "represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery."
Those regional steps never happened. All the attention was focused on Iraq, subjected to an embargo system that starved people and weakened society, and reinforced Saddam's regime. Between 1991 and 1998 UN inspectors did impressive work making sure that Iraq's nuclear programme, almost all its missiles and many of its chemical weapons were destroyed. They put in place a long-term control system, with surveillance cameras at dozens of sites. We were finally on the way to disarmament and the end of the embargo. But the US had other plans.
Rolf Ekeus, who was in charge of the UN inspectors in Iraq between 1991 and 1997, has recently revealed that the US used the inspectors for espionage; it had also "pressed the inspection leadership to carry out inspections which were controversial from the Iraqis' view, and thereby created a blockage that could be used as the justification for a direct military action" (4). That is what happened in December 1998 when Washington decided to bomb Iraq, without the backing of the UN, forcing the inspectors to quit and leaving the Iraqi weapons programme without any form of control.
The US is not seeking the return of the inspectors but rather a pretext for a military adventure which risks increasing the gap between the Muslim world and the West. Who can foresee the consequences of such an enterprise on a region shaken by terror and counter-terror?
President Bush Senior's former advisor, Brent Scowcroft, has warned that "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. Don't attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts." Indeed, a U.S. invasion of Iraq "could turn the whole region into a cauldron and, thus, destroy the war on terrorism." (5).
(1) BBC, London, 15 August 2002.
(2) The New York Times, 18 August 2002.
(3) US Senate report quoted by William Blum, "What The New York Times Left Out", Counterpunch, 20 August 2002.
(4) Financial Times, London, 30 July 2002.
(5) The Wall Street Journal Europe, 15 August 2002."
Quick reminder of Bushs reasons for war:
8/26/02 Cheney: Simply stated,
there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein
now has weapons of mass destruction.
There is no doubt he is amassing them
to use against our friends, against our
allies, and against us.
(Remarks to VFW, 8/26/03).
9/02 Rumsfeld: Rumsfeld told Congress
that Saddam�s
"regime has amassed large,
clandestine stockpiles of
chemical weapons, including
VX, sarin, cyclosarin
and mustard gas�� (U.S. News 6/03).
9/19/2002 Rumsfeld: There are a number
of terrorist states pursuing weapons
of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya,
North Korea, Syria, just to name
but a few. But no terrorist state
poses a greater or more immediate
threat to the security of our people
than the regime of Saddam Hussein in
Iraq. (Senate Armed Services
Committee Hearing Transcript, 9/19/2002)
1/28/03 Bush: �The British government
has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities
of uranium from Africa.�
(The State of the Union Address, 1/28/03)
2/05/03 Powell: �Our conservative
estimate is that Iraq today has a
stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons
of chemical weapons agent. That is enough
agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.� (Remarks, U.N., 2/05/03)
2/08/03 Bush: "We have sources that tell
us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized
Iraqi field commanders to use chemical
weapons -- the very weapons the dictator
tells us he does not have." (Radio Address, 2/08/03)
3/16/03 Cheney: �We believe [Saddam] has,
in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.�
(The Washington Post, 5/20/03)
3/17/03 Bush: "Intelligence gathered by
this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues
to possess and conceal some of
the most lethal weapons ever devised."
(Address, D.C., 3/17/03)
3/30/03 Rumsfeld: "We know where they are.
They're in the area around Tikrit and
Baghdad and east, west, south and north
somewhat." (Remarks, ABC, 3/30/03)
This one takes the cake :
10/06/02 Bush: Saddam Hussein could
strike without notice and inflict
"massive and sudden horror" on
America. (AP, 10/6/02)
vs Reality:
"Expectations shrink in hunt for
Saddam's weapons
By John Diamond and
Bill Nichols,
USA TODAY
Posted 9/25/2003 11:27 PM
WASHINGTON - U.S. search teams
have dramatically scaled back
their expectations for finding
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Months of searching have produced
no announced discoveries that would
validate the bulk of the allegations
that fed its rationale for going to war."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/
2003-09-25-wmd-usat_x.htm
|
Mike B (Srt_mike)
Member
Username: Srt_mike
Post Number: 364
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 11:46 pm: | |
Arthur,
I enjoy reading your posts for the most part  because you are well reasoned and make a good point. I think you're a little strong on wanting to bring Bush and co up on murder charges, but hey, none of us are perfect!
Regarding the reason for going to war... I think, based on what I know, that there were many reasons for going to war, including but not limited to:
1) Removing an unstable dictator before public support eroded completely. Saddam was an unknown quantity who hated the USA, as did his sons (who would rise to power some day). Iraq was a headache in 1990 and a probable headache in 2010. We can argue whether Saddam or his sons would have attacked us, but certainly they did not like us and did not have a friendly demeanor towards us and we are better off with others than them in power.
2) "Breaking up" the Middle-east den of US-hatred was a positive result. Syria is now bordered by Israel and Iraq. Iran is bordered by Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that is a positive thing.
3) Showing despotic countries how things can be better with democracy and coming into the western world. I don't think we could shore up support for an invasion of Iran or Syria, and from experience using the CIA to clandestinely undermine governments doesn't always work, but urging a movement to democracy through example is a positive thing.
4) Bottom line - Saddam was required to *prove* he had disposed of all WMD. I will grant you that we did not prove he hadn't, but he also did not prove he had. The burden of proof was upon him, not us. Maybe war and death gave us a ethical requirement to prove he hadn't, I don't know how I feel on that one.
5) Saddam has been known to be an ally of terrorists and those that would harm us or our friends. A distant tie, yes, but a tie nonetheless. People will say "what about Syria, what about Saudi Arabia??". Yes, I agree, both those countries are worse than Iraq was, and I do want to know why they "escaped the knife". That doesn't mean Iraq was not an ally of those that would harm us.
6) Saddam has, in the past, used bullshitting and evasive techniques to avoid completely complying with UN resolutions. He hemmed and hawed and weaseled his way through inspections and never really had his or his country's heart in disarming.
Regarding the "imminent threat" posed by WMD's. Well, I think that was one fear and I think the intelligence community failed us on this one. They made this out to be a very real concern, whereas it really was not as bad as it was hyped to be. I think Bush and co are guilty of possibly wanting the results to show something so they possibly did not view the intelligence in an unbiased way. Furthermore, the UN charter does not allow for invasion unless under threat of attack, and I think that is why we heard so much about "imminent threat".
I don't think Bush would ever knowingly just go to war knowing it would end up like this. I also don't think he is trying to cover for his dad's mistake or that he just dislikes Saddam. I don't think any president can really let a personal agenda control a nation to that extent.
In a nutshell, I think Bush F-ed up on the intelligence front, but I think the reason we heard so much about WMD is that it was one of many reasons that could have sufficed to be the "main reason" for going to war, and it happened to be a reason that made war permissible under the UN "law", so that is the one that was used.
I would say Art that your concerns about lives lost are very real and I am with you on that. But I would also say that I feel you are unfairly focusing on only what was explicitly said to criticize what Bush has done. We both know there were probably many meetings and reasons for this war, and I doubt many of them can be publicly stated, although they probably are in the best interests of the USA.
Sorry for the length. |
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 618
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:50 pm: | |
Holy Christ! You figured me out!
I can't live this lie anymore.
Guys: I am sorry for misleading you! I DO NOT own a Fiat, nor do I own a Geo.
Damn you and your sneaky ways, Mark! Arrrrrgh!! |
MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member
Username: Markpdx
Post Number: 930
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:48 pm: | |
Please post pictures of both with today's LA Times, I have reports of a Geo only running on 3 cylinders located in a trailer park in Arkansas. I suspect you may not actually own such a rare vehicle, I'm sure you understand. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. |
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 617
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:41 pm: | |
Well, you can have the VIN off my Yard-Bird Fiat X1/9 (engine half-way disassembled) or off my free 96 Geo Prism (only running on three cylinders right now).
Which would you like?? |
MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member
Username: Markpdx
Post Number: 929
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:30 pm: | |
Who cares about your name, we want VIN #s.... |
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 616
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:28 pm: | |
Hey Art! I'm glad you have such a positive view on me!
The fact is, there's no point on trying to tell you what I've done with my life. This IS the internet, as you know, and I could say anything I want.
For example: I've owned a 288 GTO, an F40, and just finished with a nice mountain drive in my Enzo. I decided to go to UCLA in order to finish up my PhD in History. Don't know why, because I've already got a JD and an MBA.
And the fact that you value my success based upon the fact that I don't own a Ferrari makes me laugh. |
Kds (Kds)
Member
Username: Kds
Post Number: 274
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:16 pm: | |
Art...
Time is the arbiter of all things. |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 2692
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 6:20 pm: | |
kds:
If you view this as a partisan fight, you're probably correct. If you view this as something in which our government took part, without party designation, then you're dead wrong. I disagreed with a good many things Clinton did, but liked a great many things that happened under his presidency. This is, and shouldn't be partisan, even if the end result is Bush's impeachment or worse.
Art |
Amir (Amir)
Junior Member
Username: Amir
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 3:15 pm: | |
Kds,
well thought out. Thanks. I hate resorting to bickering. This reply of yours gives you much credibility and respect. I don't agree with you for the reasons stated earlier, but I respect you for presenting your viewpoint in such a manner. |
Kds (Kds)
Member
Username: Kds
Post Number: 270
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 2:30 pm: | |
Hello Art.....
If I missed anything, please advise....
"Iraq was not a terrorist state before this war"
I disagree.....Iraq tried to kill Bush Sr. in the late 90's....to get technical, the assasination of a head of state counts in your books as a terrorist act I think, does it not ? Not withstanding their documented support of Hamas among other Pro-Palestinian groups and the terrorist training camps found in Iraq after the invasion.
There is no question that Iraq is a terrorist supporting state, but, the correct statement IMHO should have been....."There is no documented history or evidence to give proof to the statement that it supported Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks."
But...Iraq and 9/11 is a moot point as the claim for Iraqi involvement in 9/11 was not made by GWB as a reason for the invasion.
--------
"As to the Democrats who lied, what difference does that make"
Well.....a whole hell of a lot actually in my books.....especially since they seemingly have forgotten their phrases in these months leading up to the election.....and are now making baseless charges about lying when in fact they and some other very important world figures on the scene also inferred the same as they did both before and after 9/11.
If the US was right or wrong is indeed the issue....and deserving of another thread.
I feel that if someone wants to criticize the US then go right ahead....but to suggest that GWB lied in light of "ALL" of the preceding statements and events in the world is a little far fetched for me (to put it bluntly). It's electioneering at it's worst.
Cheers,
|
arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 2691
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:50 am: | |
MikeB & Kds:
I see your point, but I strongly question its application here:
Iraq was not a terrorist state before this war. It support palestinan freedom, but did not support Bin Laden and some of the other religious fanatics. Therefore it appears that the entire argument about why we attacked started 1. From WMDs, then because none were found, mutated into Terrorist state. Both are false.
As to Democrats who lied, what difference does that make. It appears that you're attempting to again mutate the argument. Who cares what other people say: we either were right, or we were wrong. Mutating the argument into a dems vs repubs is great, puts a lot of dust in the area, but it sure doesn't answer the question: what was the reason, and was that reason true?
The answer to those questions are: their still looking for the reason, and it doesn't appear that any of the reasons up forth are true, were true, or could be true.
Let stick to the argument here.
Art |
Mike B (Srt_mike)
Member
Username: Srt_mike
Post Number: 353
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 12:53 am: | |
Kds is making good points and a logical argument. Telson refutes every comment Kds posts with a non-factual "that's ridiculous" type reply followed, almost without fail, with "lol". Almost insinuating that what Kds posted is SO ridiculous that he is literally laughing about it.
But it appears Kds is making a logical argument - and I haven't seen any willingness to reason coming from Telson. He is taking the spam-you-to-death-with-others-data approach.
If I was totally unbiased in the matter (and I haven't chosen any side), I would say Kds has Telson running in this debate. |
Amir (Amir)
Junior Member
Username: Amir
Post Number: 178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 8:31 pm: | |
Art,
that's my take on Nibbles as well. Moronic washout who enjoys taking digs.
Kds, on the other hand, is slightly more interesting. A rabid prick who claims to be ex-intelligence. Considering how bad our intelligence has been lately, he is probably not lying about that. |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 2687
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 6:26 pm: | |
Corey:
I'm glad you liked Nebula's line. Too bad its shows his utter lack of intellectual ability. If I had to bet, he's probably late 20s, not much money, strugging to get through school, and pretty much ar risk at anything that he's done. In short most probably a failure. I haven't to this point personally attacked him, but on reflection I think my comments are probably right on.
If he claims he's had any success, let him show and tell us: no Ferrari, still in school, some years after his contemparies have already graduated, apparently left the Marines, who knows for what reason. Yeh, a great example. LMAF
Art |
Kds (Kds)
Member
Username: Kds
Post Number: 263
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 1:23 pm: | |
"KDS, sorry, but you must really be mentally challenged and totally out of your depth, if
Bush didn't lie, ROFLMAO"
Comments like this make me laugh because they seem to be the latest pattern from the left when they end up losing arguments. In the past you were either a nazi, fascist or racist when you defeated their arguments.....heh....he used all those earlier too....but now it seems that we' ve been taken to being called insane.
Oh...if life was truly so simple as that.....heh.
|
Corey Feldman (Meatballs_4)
New member
Username: Meatballs_4
Post Number: 14
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 12:43 pm: | |
LoL, best line of this whole thread.
"Go home and pack a big, fat bowl, roast it up, put on your Peter Paul & Mary LP's, and bong your night away. Put a flower necklace around your pencil-neck and dream about the good old days, when you and your hippie pals would get tear-gassed for chaining yourselves to oil rigs."
|
Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member
Username: Pitbull_trader
Post Number: 70
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 7:46 am: | |
Thx for that endorsement, those are exactly my thoughts, Kiyoharu :-)
Nippon-Jin deska ?
As far as cowards go, I really belive there
is no worse coward than someone like Bush,
who ran away from fighting the Vietnam war,
a war that ought to have been right up his
creek of the street, but which he evaded. Now, before our right wing reactionaries start
hollering Clinton, Clinton, blabla, hey,
Clinton didn't start an entirely counter
productive war based on lies that alienated
us from the world at large.
The right wing extremists that have taken over
this country and through their actions exposed
the USA to a huge security threat couldn't
spell national security, let alone have a clue about how to achieve it.
KDS, sorry, but you must really be mentally challenged and totally out of your depth, if
Bush didn't lie, ROFLMAO, then
WHERE ARE THE WMD'S THAT WHERE THE BASIS
FOR THE WAR ??? Is your memory span really
that short or just plain dysfunctional ??
lol
Bush & gang Spin, Lies and Deceit:
3/30/03 Rumsfeld: "We know where they are.
They're in the area around Tikrit and
Baghdad and east, west, south and north
somewhat." (Remarks, ABC, 3/30/03)
10/06/02 Bush: Saddam Hussein could
strike without notice and inflict
"massive and sudden horror" on
America. (AP, 10/6/02)
vs
Reality:
"Expectations shrink in hunt for
Saddam's weapons
By John Diamond and
Bill Nichols,
USA TODAY
Posted 9/25/2003 11:27 PM
WASHINGTON - U.S. search teams
have dramatically scaled back
their expectations for finding
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Months of searching have produced
no announced discoveries that would
validate the bulk of the allegations
that fed its rationale for going to war."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-25-wmd-usat_x.htm
You must really be out of your mind,
totally brainwashed or what, to not be able
to comprehend such simple factual relationships.
Jeez !
Anyway, Berlin in the early 1930s is a fairly
good analogy for where America is at the moment. America's democracy is in peril, as Germany's
was in the years following the burning down of
the Reichstag. Since 9/11, the Bush
administration has used that tragic event as
a justification to rip up our constitution and
our civil liberties, while at the same time
totally compromising the security of the USA through counter-productive and illegal wars
that also strongly damaged key alliances. Another couple of terror attacks and I honestly
believe that it's not unlikely martial law will
be declared in our country and we're inching towards a police state. Unfortunately terror attacks have become more likely as instead of tackling terror head on with all our resources Bush, with a total disregard for human life, instead chose to go off on an evil and totally superfluous US show of strength to the world
based on invented reasons that has however also enormously backfired with chaos, new terror and anarchy the main result, Iraq was just the
unlucky target, could have been any other
country.
There's a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled. Religion is the
best device used to mislead them. People are
easily manipulated and the US media have
ill-served their readers, viewers and listeners; political and religious leadership is poor and, with more than two-thirds of the country
believing that Iraq had something to do with September 11, people are ill-informed. But they
are not stupid. The huge majority of American people are a decent and basically fair-minded nation who are either ill-informed or
misinformed and certainly misled into
behaving otherwise.
"Bali proves that America's war on terror
isn't working
The US made the mistake of taking its eye off
the main target
Jonathan Freedland
Tuesday October 15, 2002
The Guardian
The world has every right to feel angry. Not
just with the perpetrators of the Saturday
night massacre in Bali, but with the
governments who vowed to wage a "war on
terror" which would make attacks like it
less likely.
Of course, no one is accusing our leaders of
having a chance to prevent this act of mass
murder and deliberately failing to take it.
(No one, that is, except the conspiracy
obsessives of radical Islamism, already
spreading the word that Saturday's bombers
were US agents, seeking to justify and intervention.)
But there is much western governments promised
to do after 9/11 which would at least have obstructed the path of the men who plotted
evil last weekend. Washington called it a
"war on terror" and, with remarkably little resistance, most of the world's people either signed up for it or acquiesced in it. Prevention
of horrors like Saturday's was the new
strategy's primary purpose. Yet all too little
of that "war" effort has actually materialised.
This new global gameplan was meant to have two
core elements at least according to its
British advocates. First would be a
ruthless, unblinking pursuit of al-Qaida. In
the pained weeks that followed the attacks on
New York and Washington, citizens in the US
and beyond imagined the full force of the state - its army, police and the complete battery of its secret services - deployed against the new enemy. Nothing would be allowed to distract from this goal. If that meant unholy alliances, so be it.
If that meant temporarily shelving other foreign policy interests, OK: hunting down Osama bin Laden and his henchmen was to be the sole priority.
On this view, Afghanistan was merely the
beginning. Uprooting the al-Qaida bases that
had mushroomed there was necessary, but hardly sufficient. The whole terrifying point about al-Qaida was that it was not located in one targetable territory, neatly confined to one set
of borders. Instead it had spread like a vapour
to as many as 50 countries, with up to 100,000 militants ready for action. Bombing a few camps would hardly reach this enemy at all.
The only way to fight this new fire was with
new fire. Since al-Qaida's methods were not
those of a conventional army, the response
would have to be equally unconventional. The military analyst Martin van Creveld had warned
a decade earlier of "asymmetric war" and now
the world understood what he meant. He urged
armies to put aside their ships and rockets,
and take on the enemy on its own terrain. The soldiers of al-Qaida did not march in columns
on battlefields but wore jeans, rented
apartments and posed as students in Hamburg, Brixton and Florida. To win, our soldiers would have to learn a new language of combat.
Last weekend's atrocity has only underlined
the tricky, slippery nature of the new enemy.
No one is even sure if Bali was an al-Qaida operation or, for that matter, whether such
thing as an "al-Qaida operation" even exists.
The Indonesian government says it was, noting
the expertise required to trigger a series of simultaneous explosions - a knowhow only al-Qaida could possess. Others are doubtful, insisting
that Bin Laden's men tend to prefer military, political or culturally iconic targets. It is
the homegrown Indonesian Jemaah Islamiyah which hits nightclubs and similar symbols of "western decadence".
Even if it was the Jemaah group, there might
still be an al-Qaida link. It could be subtle,
with al-Qaida acting as an inspiration rather
than as direct command. This is one more reason
why al-Qaida represents such a formidable foe:
it is not an organisation in the western sense
at all. It may just be an animating idea,
spreading fast throughout the Islamic world.
Which brings us to the second prong of the war
on terror many of us thought we signed up to a
year ago. This held that if al-Qaida was truly
to be defeated, killing or arresting its
activists would not do the trick: lopping off
a head today would only make another grow
tomorrow. Every counter-terrorist struggle in
the world, from Algiers to Belfast, had taught
the same lesson: in the end, there can be no military victory over an enemy which enjoys even
a limited degree of popular support. Instead,
there has to be political action. Not an attempt
to compromise with the killers - Bin-Laden is hardly demanding roundtable talks - but to win
over the constituency that offers them tacit backing: to drain the sea in which they swim.
Taken together, these two elements amounted to
a strategy that was tough on terror, tough on
the causes of terror. The west would pursue Al-Qaida operatives, even as it moved to
address the grievances which made too many in
the Muslim world rally to Bin-Laden's flag.
That meant, among other things, a new
alternative energy strategy, aimed eventually
at weaning the west off oil. No longer would the
US and others need to manipulate the Middle East just to safeguard their petrol supply. They could let the peoples of the Arab world choose their
own governments for once. The US would move
its troops out of Saudi Arabia, healing one of
the sores Bin-Laden most likes to inflame: the presence of "infidels" on holy Muslim soil. And Washington would pick up where Clinton left off, devoting serious political muscle to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Genuine
movement in that area would instantly rob the Islamists of one of their greatest recruiting pitches.
Who knows what impact all that might have had?
We certainly don't, because it has hardly been tried. Nor has the military component of the war
on terror fared much better. Bin-Laden was
allowed to vanish, along with the Taliban
leader Mullah Omar, who escaped the wrath of
the mightiest army in the world on board a clapped-out motorbike. The jump-suited captives
at Camp X-Ray appear too low-level to have
much useful to say. Nor do the US intelligence agencies inspire much confidence: they remain at war with each other while their political
masters tend to hear only what they want to
hear.
None of this is a surprise. For the prosecutors
of the war on terror - who promised to focus
like a laser beam - have let their eye wander.
Like the rulers of Orwell's 1984, our leaders
have urged us to switch our hatred overnight
not from Eastasia to Eurasia but from al-Qaida
to Baghdad. Now we are to believe Saddam is the urgent, number one priority.
Bali has proved why that is a woeful error. A
war on Iraq will win yet more backing for
jihadism in the Muslim world, apparently
concerning all Bin Laden's most lurid
predictions of a clash of west against Islam.
A prolonged US occupation of Iraq will be
the greatest provocation yet. But it will also
be a distraction from the struggle we were all urged to join a year ago. Bali has proved what Clinton argued a fortnight ago: that radical Islamism remains the "most pressing" threat in
the world today. Clinton gets that. The only question is, does Tony Blair? And if he does, is
he telling George W Bush?"
The Guardian
"There is scant evidence to
tie Saddam to terrorist organizations,
and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Indeed Saddam's goals have little
in common with the terrorists who
threaten us, and there is little
incentive for him to make common
cause with them.
Don't attack Saddam.
It would undermine our
antiterror efforts."
Brent Scowcroft
National Security Advisor to
Presidents Gerald Ford &
George Bush senior
Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug 2002
QED
|
Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member
Username: Pitbull_trader
Post Number: 69
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 7:44 am: | |
. |
Kds (Kds)
Junior Member
Username: Kds
Post Number: 245
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 9:14 pm: | |
Telson...
Sorry it's Saturday evening, I promised I'd be back yesterday, but beer and billiards was my undoing last night.
Anyways, you are using the standard liberal defence to an argument that you cannot refute, namely, stating that the points in the previous posts dont make sense and are incorrect, but without offering any reasoning as to why, or for that matter any supporting evidence to disprove these points, or show that what I was saying is factually untrue.
In order to convince ANYBODY of your generic leftist anti-Bush mantra with any kind of a standard approaching what is considered normal in the real world, you have to do so. Using "denial of reality" and "hysteria" may impress the crowd at A.N.S.W.E.R. meetings or the Berkley Campus, but unfortunately you have failed miserably here.
Now as to the point regarding Germany...they supported the first Gulf War because of the UN...period.
GWB did not lie, and you have failed to refute my points in support of the argument as to why he did not. I am not surprised. Blind screeching is the only thing that you can do because logic and reality trump all other statements.
Cleaning up the Iraqi problem is only half the battle against terrorism and mideast peace. Iran must be dealt with as must North Korea. If you could name 3 "other" countries that represent the greastest security threats to the US and the mideast situation, then do so....but until then......
The UN will not do anything unless it absolutely has to, and only after terrible tragedy and loss of life usually occurs...and then in most documented cases....they still stick their collective heads up their collective *****.
Now I wish to collectively apologize to the F-chat community for the next thread I will start of DEMOCRATIC quotes...it's not my style and it's long, but it's one you will understand and don't say you weren't warned.
It's in the new thread entitled "Who Lied" ???
|
MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Member
Username: Kiyoharu
Post Number: 337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 10:44 pm: | |
How come you guys can't see the fact that Telson here is simply mad that the money that is supposed to fight terrorism is instead diverted to fighting a war that has nothing to do with eliminating terrorists threats?
Instead you mock him with that standard "he's a liberal coward" comeback. Personally I see Telson as a true American who is concerned on his country's safety more so than these people who defend attacking/invading a country that has no connections to what happened in 9/11.
Whatever guys, it's your country. |
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 556
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 9:04 am: | |
Telson - I stopped listening to you once you used the word "neocon facist DOUBLE SPEAK".
You are like just about every pissed-off, spoiled rotten college student rebelling against his parents.
To toss around the word "facist" shows how little you actually know. It's so easy to call someone you don't like a facist or a nazi or a racist, because the TERM has inherent bad meaning, and it allows you to not have to come up with a strong argument.
Idiot. Why don't you start thinking for yourself? It really helps. |
Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member
Username: Pitbull_trader
Post Number: 68
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 8:35 am: | |
Kds, really, what kind of total nonsense are you writing, you're not making any sense whatsoever, what you're spouting is pure UnLogic in it's best form, lol.
But, in the best fact twisting and spinning style, you accuse ME of YOUR deficiencies, lol.
For your info, Germany supported us in Gulf War One, because there was a valid REASON.
It didn't support Bushs latest adventure because it understood, like pretty much the whole world, that that was based on NOTHING BUT LIES, and that this war was part of the security PROBLEM, not SOLUTION, for the millionth time, sheesh.
Hey, another Bush in the making, what, who cares about facts as long as we have Spin, Lies, Deceit, and a healthy imagination, lol
"Powell, February 2001: He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place."
|
Kds (Kds)
Junior Member
Username: Kds
Post Number: 242
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 8:31 am: | |
Funny that liberals put a price on peace and security in monetary terms.
Sympathy and support from Germany and France for the tragic event of 9/11 are in no way related to events that took place on 9/12 and thereafter. You are merely trying to make a link that is not there simply because you are unable to refute my points as stated below in both of my posts.
If you are able to make an argument that is based on facts and not hyperbole, linked together by logic and reason....go ahead.
But...until then I ask......have you ever posted ANYTHING about Ferrari's ?
In any event, it's 8:30 am MST and I have to go to the dealership where our internet is not working until Monday.
I will respond from my home computer tonight.
Have a good day.
|
Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member
Username: Pitbull_trader
Post Number: 67
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:56 am: | |
BullShit, lol, if you'll pardon my,
oh God, french.
Germany, one of the richest and
most highly developed countries in
the world was one of the staunchest
allies the US ever had !
Just go back to Gulf War One when
the US weren't the bad guys, and
look at the solidarity and friendship
we had then, out of total war costs
the US had to carry no more than roughly 20%, sheesh.
Heck, just go back to 9/11 when we had
the sympathy AND support of the entire
world before Bush's evil, nonsensical, counter-productive policies squandered
and blew all that sky high.
|
Kds (Kds)
Junior Member
Username: Kds
Post Number: 241
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:51 am: | |
"The world never believed his crap"
--------------
Sorry...but I can't resist this one....
For the terms of reference here "the world" refers to nations that have socialist backgrounds and generally anti-US/Israeli policies. Heck....just insert France, Germany and Russia if you are so inclined.
FACT:
"The world" was trying for years to find out what was going on inside Iraq before GWB was president.....at Bill Clinton's urging BTW. Remember my comment about quotes Telson ?
FACT:
Certain parts of "the world" didn't want to upset the large Muslim/Arab populations inside their countries and bring terror attacks against their own citizens or election turmoil as a result. Tony Blair was very brave and the exception here.
FACT:
"The world" namely France and Russia had very large billion dollar contracts with Iraq and were concerned about those countracts being abrogated due to conflict. Yes....the war was about oil.....but not on the US side.
|
Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member
Username: Pitbull_trader
Post Number: 65
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:31 am: | |
Tom, Bush DIDN't fool the world, and I never said nor believe that he is clever, lol, quite the opposite.
Bush is sheer dumbness, albeit with a talent for focusing on sthg he's set his sights on, he's good at creating an undemocratic atmosphere of fear and repression (either you're with us, or you're against us, if you're against us, you're a traitor, etc etc) coupled with tenacious evil and incredible audacity in risk taking, is all.
The world never believed his crap, and that is exactly why, totally unlike the first Gulf War, we are pretty much having to foot the bill ourselves, which is exactly why Our Great Leader had to make a groveling speech to the nation asking for another $87 billion to rebuild Iraq. And that's just for one year. That brings the total budget for the war - so far - to $166 billion.
Just to put things in perspective, $87 billion is three times the amount Bush intends to spend on education this year, and twice the budget for Homeland Security. To put it further into perspective, the 1991 Gulf War, where we actually had allies contributing the by-far bulk of total budget as we weren't the bad guys, accordingly only cost the United States about $20 billion total.
All that money our bankrupt nation doesn't have in the first place for nothing but a counter productive, unprecedented pre-emptive war of aggression based on nothing but lies against a nation that had not attacked us, did not pose a threat to us, and carries an outcome that isn't making the US a safer, but a much more dangerous place to live. |
TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member
Username: Tifosi
Post Number: 4381
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:25 am: | |
If he was so smart in doing that - ie fooling the entire world then why did he not wait another 6-10 months and ride a high into the next election? None of your arguments hang together
you say he is stupid but he fooled the world
you say he was smart enough to create a war that people in the US would stongly support him in but not smart enough to do it closer to an election - something anyone would have learned from GB I.
|
Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member
Username: Pitbull_trader
Post Number: 63
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:18 am: | |
Tom, actually I really believe that that is just what Bush did:
He realized that the fight against terrorism is too difficult to come up with quick fixes, but he decided that the American people needed a "success", and he basically bet that the Americans wouldn't ask too many questions just as long as the war went pretty well.
Add unto that some neocon fascist Double Speak - hey, the neocons had planned this war ages ago already, don't forget, and there you have it:
A war for which no rationale existed, as indeed practically the entire world and even Colin Powell accepted on his first trip to the Middle East back in February 2001:
"Powell: He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place."
|
Kds (Kds)
Junior Member
Username: Kds
Post Number: 240
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:17 am: | |
Telson.....
As a Canadian standing outside your country it's pretty obvious to even me that GWB didnt lie about anything regarding WMD's.
In order for this supposition to have even the slightest remote chance at garnering credibility you would have to totally ERASE the previous 20 years of his regimes history and the last 12 years of deception, denial and outright disregard of world opinion and intentions in that regard. Notwithstanding geopolitics against US/Israeli intentions.
If anybody "lied" it was Blix and Hussein himself that are directly to blame. Of course, coming from people whose ethics permit and accept lying as a normal form of communication and lying under oath to the congress, and in a year leading up to an election, your remarks and TOTALLY expected.
"Slander"....what a great book title.
Your postings here ring true with the 5 pillars of leftist/liberal politics........
Hysteria
Denial of Reality
Thought Control
Projection of Guilt
Name Calling
"EDITED TO ADD"
In using quotes Telson you must be mindful of dates. Quotes before 9/11 from your side of the fence do as much to discredit the argument that you are trying to put forth.
|
TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member
Username: Tifosi
Post Number: 4378
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:11 am: | |
If he lied intentially he was not very creative. furthermore if he lied intentially, he would be pretty stupid since one would have to realize that once we took over, his "lies" would be exposed. That leaves some possible senarios
1) there were never WMD and we had bad intel
2) There were WMD but they have been moved to another country
3) There still are WMD and we have not found them yet.
At this point I can't strongly argue against your position if you chose point one, and if that is the case then the country will have to decide how to handle the intel problem and maybe vote GWB out of office. But to say someone made up stories without any foundation or proof just to send women and men into war to take over a country which will be then given back to the local population is really sick and perverted. you can do better than that |
Bruce Wellington (Bws88tr)
Advanced Member
Username: Bws88tr
Post Number: 3103
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:05 am: | |
TELSON
GET OFF THE SAUCE AND WAKE UP........... |
Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member
Username: Pitbull_trader
Post Number: 62
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:03 am: | |
Tom, nobody wishes Saddam
were still in power, even though he was,
of course, a major US ally for many years.
But the only relevant point here
is that Bush LIED to the US people
about the rationale for going to war,
and you cannot just run around and
change the rationale post facto just
because it's become clear that the
first rationale was just Spin, Lies
and Deceit.
Saddam did NOT pose a threat to his
neighbors, let alone the USA.
That was just a BIG LIE by Bush, nothing else.
|
TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member
Username: Tifosi
Post Number: 4377
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 6:57 am: | |
telson, we had intelligence that Germany was marching people into gas chambers and killing hundreds of thousands but did nothing. I guess you feel it was right to wait till they were a threat to us. Its amazing that people still wish Saddam was still in power |
Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member
Username: Pitbull_trader
Post Number: 61
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 6:50 am: | |
Tom, unlike Germany under Hitler, Iraq
did not pose a threat to the USA.
Here is how Bush justified this
unprecedented, pre-emptive war
of aggression against Iraq:
"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
- George W. Bush, September 12 2002
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George Bush, February 8 2003
10/06/02 Bush: Saddam Hussein could
strike without notice and inflict
"massive and sudden horror" on
America. (AP, 10/6/02)
Vs, of course, reality:
"Expectations shrink in hunt for
Saddam's weapons
By John Diamond and
Bill Nichols,
USA TODAY
Posted 9/25/2003 11:27 PM
WASHINGTON - U.S. search teams
have dramatically scaled back
their expectations for finding
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Months of searching have produced
no announced discoveries that would
validate the bulk of the allegations
that fed its rationale for going to war."
www.usatoday.com
|
TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member
Username: Tifosi
Post Number: 4375
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 6:41 am: | |
how many soldiers died each day in the months following the fall of the Germany in WWII? |
Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member
Username: Pitbull_trader
Post Number: 58
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 6:37 am: | |
The key issue here is that
Bush diverted limited resources away
from following Al Qaeda, that attacked
us, to launching an unprecedented
pre-emptive attack on Iraq, that
hadn't attacked us, wasn't linked
to Al Qaeda, and posed no threat
to us. By so doing Bush severely
compromised the security of the USA,
set dangerous precedents in which
other countries will build up their
arsenals now and also feel
emboldened to pre-emptively
attack other states
triggering wars we might
otherwise have avoided, and
he has given Al Qaeda a massive
recruiting drive, using
Spin, Lies and Deceit as his sole
modus operandi.
Not to mention the fact that our
credibilty is also destroyed world wide.
The only result of Bushs war based on
lies is chaos and anarchy in Iraq, a
real quagmire of a situation.
There are in fact significant
resemblances between Vietnam and
Iraq, as well as major differences
(no Soviet Union to constrain us).
We entered both wars under
false pretenses. We now
know that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution
of August 1964, by which Congress
played Pilate with the blood of millions,
was a "fill-in-the-blanks" White House
document, drafted months before. We now
know that the second Tonkin Gulf
incident, which LBJ used to justify the
war and, en passant, neutralize Vietnam
as a '64 campaign issue, never happened.
And he knew it.
And once again, it appears, the
troops don't matter. No draftee
expendables this time around, but
an equivalent lack of concern.
Arbitrarily extended tours
(especially for reservists), lack
of proper support in the field,
even Bushs shoddy
attempt to cut combat, hardship
and family separation pay (and billing
wounded soldiers $8.10 a day for hospital
meals). Bush and Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld can sing paeans to the
troops every time they get behind a
microphone. But they can't fool them.
And there's a price to be paid for
trying.
We face in Iraq, as we did in Vietnam,
a classic guerrilla campaign. Four basic
tactics.
# Make us bleed. Attacks and casualties
daily, plus occasional spectaculars.
# Radicalize the population against us
by forcing us to stern repressive
measures and to make mistakes.
# Kill and intimidate those who would
work with us.
# Destroy what we build; steal what we
donate; use it against us.
Foreigners streaming in by the thousands
from safe havens beyond Iraq's borders:
Jihadi, America-haters, rich, bored young
men and poor, desperate young men.
Compromising world peace and stability
abroad, and creating a fascist
totalitarian state of the unfree at
home, where judicial due process and
civil rights are rapidly turning into
little more than fond memories, thats
our beloved Leader Bush in all his evil
glory for you.
"CNN.com
General: 3-6 GIs die each week in Iraq
Guerrillas becoming more lethal, complex, tenacious, he says
Friday, October 3, 2003 Posted: 3:27 AM EDT (0727 GMT)
CNN's Richard Roth on the revision
of a U.S. resolution that gives a
greater role to the U.N. in Iraq.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- An average of
three to six Americans are killed each
week in Iraq and another 40 are wounded
by a foe that has become more lethal
and sophisticated since the fall of
Baghdad in April, the commander of
coalition forces said.
U.S. soldiers are facing 15 to 20
attacks a day, including roadside
bombs, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said
Thursday. Seven to 10 attacks a day
involve small groups of fighters.
Most attacks occur in Baghdad and the
surrounding Sunni Muslim stronghold to
the west and north of the capital,
although it is unclear whether Iraqi
or foreign forces account for the
majority.
"The enemy has evolved -- a little
bit more lethal, a little more
complex, a little more sophisticated,
and in some cases, a little bit more
tenacious," Sanchez said.
Since May 1, when President Bush
declared the end of major combat
operations, 87 American soldiers
have been killed by hostile fire
in a low-level, guerrilla-style
insurgency, according to U.S.
Central Command and the Pentagon.
A total of 317 Americans have died
since the war began March 20,
according to Central Command and
the Pentagon.
On Wednesday alone, three Americans
were killed:
� A soldier who was shot while on
patrol in the al-Mansour district
of Baghdad.
� A female soldier who died when
a roadside bomb exploded about 300
yards (meters) from the main U.S.
base in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown.
� A soldier who died after a
rocket-propelled grenade attack
on a convoy near Samara, 60 miles
(100 kilometers) north of the Iraqi
capital.
While most wounded Americans are
treated at two military hospitals
in Iraq, those with more serious
injuries are evacuated to the U.S.
military hospital in Landstuhl,
Germany.
Landstuhl has been receiving an
average of 40 to 44 patients a day
from Iraq, about 10 to 12 percent of
whom are classified as having "battle
injuries," said hospital spokeswoman
Marie Shaw.
Since the start of the war, the
hospital has treated 6,684 patients --
5,377 after May 1, she said.
"What we don't see a lot of, though
we see some, is gunshot wounds," Shaw
said. "We see a lot of shrapnel wounds,
some amputations, some burns -- mostly
from individual explosive devices."
'Foreign fighter element'
Sanchez blamed the increasingly
sophisticated resistance on the addition
of foreign fighters entering Iraq from
Syria and northern Iran.
"We believe there is in fact a foreign
fighter element. There is a terrorist
element focused on the coalition and
international community in general and
the Iraqi people to try to disrupt the
progress being made," Sanchez said.
Coalition officials are not discounting
the possibility that Saddam Hussein may
have a hand in coordinating the violence,
he said.
"It's very clear there is local command
and control. We still are not seeing
the national command and control
structure," though there are some
signs of regional coordination,
Sanchez said.
In Thursday's violence, about 10
U.S. soldiers came under fire in
Fallujah, 30 miles (48 kilometers)
west of Baghdad, in front of the
mayor's office.
No Americans were hurt, but one Iraqi
bystander was killed and four people,
including a mother and her 4-year-old
daughter, were wounded, hospital
officials said.
Shortly before the attack in Fallujah,
a fuel tanker in a U.S. convoy near
Amiriyah, southeast of the city, was
hit by a mine or roadside bomb,
according to Mohammed Hamid, who
lives nearby.
He said a soldier in the passenger
seat of the cab pulling the tanker
was killed and the driver was wounded.
The military had no information on
that attack.
In nearby Khaldiyah, a roadside bomb
exploded as a U.S. convoy was passing,
but did not damage the American
vehicles. Elsewhere, a U.S. soldier
and an Iraqi bystander were wounded
in an ambush in Mosul, U.S. officials
and Iraqi police said.
Iraqis lobbying for security control
Meanwhile, U.S. officials said
soldiers raided three weapons caches
in the Mosul area this week,
seizing 15 surface-to-air missiles,
300 rocket-propelled grenades,
10 grenade launchers, 8,000 rounds
of machine gun ammunition, rifles,
mortar shells and two crates of plastic
explosives.
The raids took place Tuesday. On the
same day, Iraqi police raided a mosque
in Mosul and confiscated two machine
guns, 267 mortar shells and hundreds of
rounds of ammunition, according to U.S.
officials.
Iraqi officials have been urging the
coalition to transfer security
responsibility to Iraqis, echoing
calls by France, Germany, Russia
and other major countries who want
to see a quick restoration of Iraqi
sovereignty.
On Thursday, a member of the U.S.-
appointed Iraqi Governing Council,
Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, urged the
United States and Britain to
"change their wrong policies and
put security matters in the hands
of Iraqis."
The U.N. Security Council
debated a new U.S. draft resolution
on handing over power to Iraqis and
giving the United Nations a larger role.
But the new measure did not set a
timetable for the Americans and
British to cede power -- a key
demand of France, which has called
for sovereignty to be transferred
by the end of the year.
However, U.S. Secretary of State
Colin Powell said a hasty transition
to civilian rule could produce a
"failed state."
Powell insisted that "we want Iraqis
to be in the driver's seat" although
the process of fostering democracy in
Iraq takes time. The Iraqis themselves
should determine the pace, he said.
Sanchez, the commanding general, said
U.S. coalition officials are working
on training an Iraqi police and military
force but it will take time before it can
take full responsibility for Iraq's
security."
www.cnn.com
|
ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 1347
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 7:46 am: | |
rising opium production is indeed a terrible thing, however that is an extrapolation too far in this argument of whether or not the usa is still pursuing alqueda in afghanistan. the connection is not lost on me, but that is one of those things that may be bigger than we can handle.
the personal losses in this situation are indeed tragic as well. but unfortunately they will have to be endured if we are to succeed properly in this venture that we are only halfway through with. not to finish the job would be to disrespect those who have already made the ultimate sacrifice. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page