The Iraq Thread 2

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]There is blood on the hands of both and I hope there is something like a final judgement that will punish them and the ones who assisted them during their warmongering campaigns.

Forget final judgement. The UN should grow some balls and do to the US what they would have done to any other aggressor and occupier.

It sickens me to see some countries getting away with everything. And thats probably something that can have motivated this attack (not sole factor most likely).

Yeah, yeah. I know. The UN can't and won't take actions against the US...

[denoir 0]

Yeah, yeah. I know. The UN can't and won't take actions against the US...

The UN can do what its member countries want. Would a majority of the world like USA to be sanctioned? No.

There's no absolute wrong/right in the world, only what we agree on. It may not be morally consistent, but it's what the majority wants. Besides, we have a security council and their permanent members which would never allow any action against the US.

The UN is not some form of an utopia - it's an imperfect system for an imperfect world. The UN does the best it realistically can to bring peace and a decent quality of life to the population of our planet. It does not deal in fantasies. USA is a superpower and untouchable as such. Thinking anything else would be a delusion and would in the end hurt more people than it would help.

Edit:

List of victimes of the bombing

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]The UN is not some form of an utopia - it's an imperfect system for an imperfect world. The UN does the best it realistically can to bring peace and a decent quality of life to the population of our planet. It does not deal in fantasies. USA is a superpower and untouchable as such. Thinking anything else would be a delusion and would in the end hurt more people than it would help.

I know, that was what I refered to when I said that the UN can't take action.

Still, it takes no genius to figure out why some people would come to hate the UN for just this.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]USA is a superpower and untouchable as such.

With legal measures yes. But trade restrictions and isolating them already does a good job when it comes to steel and agricultural governmental aid. The EU has the power to face the US someday and they are already oipposing them in several issues. The US run out of money in vast ways, the recent electricity breakdown ( a sign of god ? ) revealed another big problem to be fixed. If the US continue on their course of spending billions for abraod military actions they will go down sooner than we think.

That´s why the US and the Brits are seeking a new UN resolution. They want money from the other UN members to finance their illegal war- and occupation mission in Iraq. For sure the only companies to be involved in Iraq´s oil business and deliciouse rebuilding contracts will be primary coaltion countries companies.

If you ask me I don´t care how the US is doing in Iraq if they get into more and more problems daily, but I do care for non-profit organizations that are getting targets because of that respectless foreign policy the coaltion follows.

Maybe the US people need 20 killed a day to start thinking.

If truth and justice are defined by the TBA the way they did prior the war I´d say I follow another truth and another justice.

[denoir 0]

That´s why the US and the Brits are seeking a new UN resolution. They want money from the other UN members to finance their illegal war- and occupation mission in Iraq.

Indeed, that's no big secret.

The question is what happens now. This attack on the UN will surely bring the coalition and the UN closer together.

However I'm not sure that it will be enough. For the first time I'm very sceptical about how this whole thing will end. I'm not sure at all that this will end well at all. There was a serious fuckup in the beginning of the occupation. There were too few troops and they did not manage to take over directly after Saddam. Instead the situation has gotten worse each day.

I'm afraid the situation is entirely out of control. The only solution that I can see is to flood Iraq with troops. At least 10 times the number that is stationed there now. I don't see that happening however.

[Bernadotte 0]

Why the surprise, denoir?

From the other thread, when the war was just a week old...

Some War Predictions:

...

Many Iraqis will resist the Allied occupation as the Afghans did against the Soviets, with the help of factions in neighbouring states like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.  This will accelerate in the second half of this year with the loss of many Allied and civilian lives.

My predictions were not made on the basis of everything going wrong for the US.  On the contrary.  I believe this is nearly exactly how they wanted things to go.  And, nobody needed a crystal ball to see all this coming.  It's not as though TBA has been keeping their real longterm goals a secret.

[denoir 0]

Why the surprise, denoir?

Call me a hopeless optimist but I did believe that the situation in Iraq would improve over time. The country has economic resources to do very well. I never thought it would be an easy transition, but I thought it was fully possible. Now I'm not sure anymore.

Quote[/b] ]My predictions were not made on the basis of everything going wrong for the US. On the contrary. I believe this is nearly exactly how they wanted things to go. And, nobody needed a crystal ball to see all this coming. It's not as though TBA has been keeping their real longterm goals a secret.

I think that this is exactly the opposite of what TBA wanted and expected. TBA does not gain anything by chaos. TBA does not gain anything by oil production being sabotaged. They don't gain anything by US soldiers getting killed. The only thing that this is going to lead to is that the neocons will be kicked out of power. I'd say that Iraq is developing to Bush's nightmare scenario.

[Bernadotte 0]

I think that this is exactly the opposite of what TBA wanted and expected. TBA does not gain anything by chaos. TBA does not  gain anything by oil production being sabotaged.  They don't gain anything by US soldiers getting killed. The only thing that this is going to lead to is that the neocons will be kicked out of power. I'd say that Iraq is developing to Bush's nightmare scenario.

What if...

- the infrastructure were restored;

- Saddam was caught;

- the UN were poised to set up peacekeeping ops, if necessary;

- no hostilities;

- the people were content;

- a representative interim Iraqi government was ready to take over.

I can't imagine that the people of Iraq and the world would simply say, "why don't you guys stay here and govern our nation for as long as you like?"

In that case, the US/UK (with Haliburton and Bechtel) would have no more excuses to stay there.  Nobody is really inviting them to stay there right now either, but at least with every serviceman killed they can claim to be in a prolongedstruggle against terrorism.

(Please believe that I am only trying to see the situation the way it really is and not the way I'd like to see it.)

[ran 0]

What if...

- the infrastructure were restored;

- Saddam was caught;

- the UN were poised to set up peacekeeping ops, if necessary;

- no hostilities;

- the people were content;

- a representative interim Iraqi government was ready to take over.

you would wake up and realise it was a dream ;)

[denoir 0]

- the infrastructure were restored;

- Saddam was caught;

- the UN were poised to set up peacekeeping ops, if necessary;

- no hostilities;

- the people were content;

- a representative interim Iraqi government was ready to take over.

I can't imagine that the people of Iraq and the world would simply say, "why don't you guys stay here and govern our nation for as long as you like?"

In that case, the US/UK (with Haliburton and Bechtel) would have no more excuses to stay there.  Nobody is really inviting them to stay there right now either, but at least with every serviceman killed they can claim to be in a prolongedstruggle against terrorism.

Their income depends on Iraq being able to finance their operations. As long as that gets sabotaged it's only a huge cost. Believe it or not, but I doubt that USA has any interest of ruling Iraq. They just want to set up a profitable relationship.

By making sure that the infrastructure is build by American companies, that infrastructure becomes dependant on expertise and spare parts from those same companies. In the transition period all sorts of long term deals and contracts will be made, attaching Iraq economically to USA for a long time.

For this to be a profitable relationship, Iraq must be normalized. As long as there is trouble, chaos and sabotage there's no profit. Plus it comes with an enormous political cost. The first priority of politicians is to get re-elected. Right now, the future of the neocons are hanging by a thread. If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate then they will lose power.

So as far as I understand it, there is nobody that has more to gain (apart from the Iraqis themselves perhaps) that the Iraq situation gets resolved than TBA. Both economically and politically. I am convinced that the failures we have seen are due to immense incompetence and lack of planning and not as part of some evil plot.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I am convinced that the failures we have seen are due to immense incompetence and lack of planning and not as part of some evil plot.

Well I disagree. To start a war to get influence in another country with money interests and to spread false info on WMD´s, AQ, etc... to gain a reason for the war, is in fact a bit evil, isn´t it ?

Stupidity whilst planning for sure but the concept was made up by people who have money interests and still have them.

[denoir 0]

No, I'm not talking about starting the war, which was started for dishonest reasons and through deception. I'm talking about the rebuilding effort where my point is that they can't exploit the country while it does not have any incomes. So it's in their interest to get it up and running based on an infrastructure built by a select few companies.

[Bernadotte 0]

Their income depends on Iraq being able to finance their operations. As long as that gets sabotaged it's only a huge cost.

It only increases the debt of the Iraqi people to the US government.  A debt that Iraq will easily be able to pay off with interest, eventually.  A banker's favourite customer is one who is extremely wealthy, but needs more time to pay back loans.

In any case, US firms don't need to worry about getting paid on time.  Their money comes directly from US taxpayers.

Believe it or not, but I doubt that USA has any interest of ruling Iraq. They just want to set up a profitable relationship.

By making sure that the infrastructure is build by American companies, that infrastructure becomes dependant on expertise and spare parts from those same companies. In the transition period all sorts of long term deals and contracts will be made, attaching Iraq economically to USA for a long time.

A democratically elected Iraqi government could tear up every contract with every US firm in an instant and re-sign with French/Russian companies if that's what Iraqi voters wanted.  This is why I suspect that US firms will have a very big interest in who rules Iraq for a long time to come.

For this to be a profitable relationship, Iraq must be normalized. As long as there is trouble, chaos and sabotage there's no profit.

No profit?  Who do you think repairs the damage to the infrastructure from sabotage?

Plus it comes with an enormous political cost.  The first priority of politicians is to get re-elected.  Right now, the future of the neocons are hanging by a thread. If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate then they will lose power.

I believe the NeoCons are more concerned with satisfying most of their aims within the next 18 months than with spreading their program out over another 4 years - although they wouldn't mind that.

So as far as I understand it, there is nobody that has more to gain (apart from the Iraqis themselves perhaps) that the Iraq situation gets resolved than TBA. Both economically and politically. I am convinced that the failures we have seen are due to immense incompetence and lack of planning and not as part of some evil plot.

Evil plot?  lol  

You don't need to hatch an evil plot for things to fall apart in your favour.   You only need to keep your soldiers hot, tired and scared for civilian casualties to mount.  You only need to direct your resources towards repairing oil wells instead of water wells to generate unrest, not to mention thirst.  What?  Not enough soldiers to guard both the Oil Ministry and the National Museum?

Just because they are not as stupid as you think, doesn't mean there is an evil plot.

Or perhaps you are right.  Maybe invading a sovereign nation and that whole WMD mania was just a stupid mistake.  But now that they're there, they might as well "set up some profitable relationships" for US firms, right?

[denoir 0]

Their income depends on Iraq being able to finance their operations. As long as that gets sabotaged it's only a huge cost.

It only increases the debt of the Iraqi people to the US government.  A debt that Iraq will easily be able to pay off with interest, eventually.  A banker's favourite customer is one who is extremely wealthy, but needs more time to pay back loans.

In any case, US firms don't need to worry about getting paid on time.  Their money comes directly from US taxpayers.

The situation is not slowly improving, but drastically deteriorating. There is a real question of how long the US can stay in Iraq. And it sure as is not going to be fixed before the next round of US elections.

And the fact that the US taxpayers pay the whole thing makes it only worse. These are not small sums. 3 bn USD/month. How do I know this? Because it's all over the media since people are outraged by the high costs. Not quite the image George "I'll-abolish-all-taxes" Bush benefits from.

Quote[/b] ]

A democratically elected Iraqi government could tear up every contract with every US firm in an instant and re-sign with French/Russian companies if that's what Iraqi voters wanted.

Nope. Those contracts are made for a 25-50 year period. That's why Iraq is still up to its ears in debt with the Russians. You have international trade laws that regulate that. Once the contracts are in place, the only thing that could possibly tear them up is a revolution (á la Iran) otherwise they're stuck with them for a very very long time (á la Saudi Arabia).

Quote[/b] ]

I believe the NeoCons are more concerned with satisfying most of their aims within the next 18 months than with spreading their program out over another 4 years - although they wouldn't mind that.

Iraq is a long term investment. It will probably take more than a decade before it can be properly robbed.

Quote[/b] ]Or perhaps you are right.  Maybe invading a sovereign nation and that whole WMD mania was just a stupid mistake.  But now that they're there, they might as well "set up some profitable relationships" for US firms, right?

No, the invasion was not at all a mistake. It was about gaining economic, political and military advantages. The thing is that it did not really turn out the way they wanted. They hoped that the Iraqi, thrilled by the fact that Saddam is gone would with open arms recieve the occupation forces. Then they would with close American help rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure that had been neglected for years during the sanctions. Everything from oil refineries, telecom, power net to a new military would have to be rebuilt with USA having a say in every decision. And the Iraqis would rejoice and more then willingly give their liberators a piece of the cake.

Well, it did not work out quite that way. So now they're stuck with USA financing everything (which no-more-taxes Bush has to explain to both the senate and to the public) and US soldiers are dying on a regular basis (the best incentive for abandoning Iraq and preventing Bush from being re-elected).  

As I see it, this is not only an unprofitable situation for the neocons - it's their worst nightmare coming true. No money and no political future.

[Bernadotte 0]

Nope. Those contracts are made for a 25-50 year period. That's why Iraq is still up to its ears in debt with the Russians. You have international trade laws that regulate that. Once the contracts are in place, the only thing that could possibly tear them up is a revolution (á la Iran) otherwise they're stuck with them for a very very long time (á la Saudi Arabia).

Let's see...

- Nation A illegally invades nation B

- Nation A sets up admininstrative authority in nation B

- Firms form nation A sign contracts with said authority

- Nation B democratically discards authority and all contracts signed under authority

Even if such contracts would be recognised under international law, who would enforce them?

The French? The Russians?

[denoir 0]

That's not much of a problem. Should they start violating agreements with the US, I'm sure some WMD activity and terrorism could be found.

But according to neocon plans, that would never be a problem since the Iraqis were supposed to be so happy about being liberated that they would gladly embrace integral cooperation with US firms.

[ralphwiggum 6]

What if...

- the infrastructure were restored;

- Saddam was caught;

- the UN were poised to set up peacekeeping ops, if necessary;

- no hostilities;

- the people were content;

- a representative interim Iraqi government was ready to take over.

then i would be voting for Arnie for Governor of CA.

back on topic, our swedish pinko-ass commie got it right about who was behind UN bombing.

before the war, TBA said there were links between Hussein and AQ. guess UN bombing "proves" that - Push Hussein out, AQ can sneak in.

[Balschoiw 0]

The number of Iraqi guards, for the Iraqi oil fields and pipelines, is being increased. Actually, the program of forming paramilitary Iraqi security units has grown enormously, although numbers have not been released. The policy appears to be one of reminding the Iraqis that it is their country and their wealth that is at stake here. Most Iraqis understand that it is the hated Baath Party that is behind most of this violence, and that Baath is the only one that will gain from it. Few people outside the Sunni Arab areas want to see Baath (or Saddam) return to power. And most Sunni Arabs are more concerned about retribution from the majority Shia and Kurds than they are in supporting armed resistance to the occupation.

The daily, and more often, nightly, American raids continue. Several dozen more Baath supporters or foreign Islamic radicals are arrested or killed each day. These raids are unnerving to the Baath party groups, as is the armed resistance when the Sunni Arab Baath tries to operate outside their traditional areas.

The Iraqi ruling council, which will shortly turn into an Iraqi government, is displaying the fractious behavior that has long characterized Iraqi politics. The Sunni Arabs are keeping their heads down, knowing that they were the main supporters of Saddam and the Baath Party for the last three decades. The Shias are split into many political and religious factions. The Kurds, split into two major factions, are, for the moment, largely united. There are some Shia factions that do not have members in the current council, and that means partisans of these factions go in for a lot of street demonstrations to make sure they are heard.

[denoir 0]

The Iraqi ruling council, which will shortly turn into an Iraqi government, is displaying the fractious behavior that has long characterized Iraqi politics. The Sunni Arabs are keeping their heads down, knowing that they were the main supporters of Saddam and the Baath Party for the last three decades. The Shias are split into many political and religious factions. The Kurds, split into two major factions, are, for the moment, largely united. There are some Shia factions that do not have members in the current council, and that means partisans of these factions go in for a lot of street demonstrations to make sure they are heard.

It's actually worse than that.  The largest factions of the Shi'a Muslims are not at all represented in the ruling council.  This is because USA does not at all like their agenda so they were never invited to participate.

The ironic thing is that these are the same factions that Saddam used to oppress.  From the point of view of exterminating Muslim fundamentalists, there was no better man for the job than Saddam.  They were enemies of his secular rule and he had no problem using any means necessary to remove them.  With Saddam gone various extremist factions have free hands to do as they please.

So, from the point of view of a campaign against terrorism, removing Saddam was a huge mistake.  As odd as it might sound he was a stabilizing force in the region.

I never thought I would say this, but FSPilot is probably right about one thing and that is that Iraq does attract foreign guerrilla fighters or terrorist if you wish these days.  Iraq is becoming a magnet for all sorts of people like Afghanistan was in the eighties.  With Americans stationed so near, fighting a holy war has become much easier.  So, while Iraq did not have any terrorists before the war it sure as hell has them now.

I wonder what TBA will do next in their efforts to make the world secure from terrorists?  Randomly bomb mosques in hope that they might catch some bad people inside?

[denoir 0]

'Chemical Ali' captured

Ha! Remember the reports of his death? Not quite true apparently.

[Badgerboy 0]

Do you think he'll be put up in front of a military or a civil court? That would certainly affect his sentence.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wonder what TBA will do next in their efforts to make the world secure from terrorists?

They should buy/conquer an island, call it "New USA", transport 100.000 US soldiers to it and wait. Call it a magnet. It will attract most of the terrorists on the world and the best thing is that the USA will not be place of the showdown. Oh wait...., the US already have such place

Quote[/b] ]Do you think he'll be put up in front of a military or a civil court? That would certainly affect his sentence.

Den Haag should be the place for this guy. Neither Guantanamo or another US jail is allowed to sentence him as he only followed Husseins orders and lived and worked in Iraq.

Basically the US aren´t even allo0wed to keep him as POW as he was caught not during war actions but after them. Funny as it is the US don´t have any right to take him abroad and put him in front of court.

[Schoeler 0]

The Iraqi ruling council, which will shortly turn into an Iraqi government, is displaying the fractious behavior that has long characterized Iraqi politics. The Sunni Arabs are keeping their heads down, knowing that they were the main supporters of Saddam and the Baath Party for the last three decades. The Shias are split into many political and religious factions. The Kurds, split into two major factions, are, for the moment, largely united. There are some Shia factions that do not have members in the current council, and that means partisans of these factions go in for a lot of street demonstrations to make sure they are heard.

It's actually worse than that.  The largest factions of the Shi'a Muslims are not at all represented in the ruling council.  This is because USA does not at all like their agenda so they were never invited to participate.

The ironic thing is that these are the same factions that Saddam used to oppress.  From the point of view of exterminating Muslim fundamentalists, there was no better man for the job than Saddam.  They were enemies of his secular rule and he had no problem using any means necessary to remove them.  With Saddam gone various extremist factions have free hands to do as they please.

So, from the point of view of a campaign against terrorism, removing Saddam was a huge mistake.  As odd as it might sound he was a stabilizing force in the region.

I never thought I would say this, but FSPilot is probably right about one thing and that is that Iraq does attract foreign guerrilla fighters or terrorist if you wish these days.  Iraq is becoming a magnet for all sorts of people like Afghanistan was in the eighties.  With Americans stationed so near, fighting a holy war has become much easier.  So, while Iraq did not have any terrorists before the war it sure as hell has them now.

I wonder what TBA will do next in their efforts to make the world secure from terrorists?  Randomly bomb mosques in hope that they might catch some bad people inside?

Maybe he has made the rest of the world secure from terrorists, LOL, they are all in Iraq!

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Following this week's deadly bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the United States will seek a U.N. resolution to encourage more countries to bolster security in Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday.

"We will be working with the United Nations representatives in Baghdad on security matters," Powell said. "We want the humanitarian workers and other workers in Iraq -- reconstruction workers and others -- to have a safe environment.

"We will work closely with the United Nations to make sure that they can perform their work in as safe an environment as is possible considering the circumstances."

where's that "US can do it alone" attitude now?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

http://www.cnn.com/2003....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Following this week's deadly bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the United States will seek a U.N. resolution to encourage more countries to bolster security in Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday.

"We will be working with the United Nations representatives in Baghdad on security matters," Powell said. "We want the humanitarian workers and other workers in Iraq -- reconstruction workers and others -- to have a safe environment.

"We will work closely with the United Nations to make sure that they can perform their work in as safe an environment as is possible considering the circumstances."

where's that "US can do it alone" attitude now?

Quote[/b] ]where's that "US can do it alone" attitude now?

Both sides are FORCED to approach each other now. The UN now obviously needs protection now from US forces.

Weather the US is to blame for this attack on the UN (as a consequence of war) has no impact. Of first and utmost importance is the protection of all UN offices in IRAQ! And for that you need the US