The Iraq Thread 2

[denoir 0]

Actually, the US can't be blamed for not providing sufficient protection to the UN. They did offer it, but the UN declined as heavily armed protection would alienate them from the Iraqis. They did not go into a self-imposed isolation like the colaition troops have.

And even in the light of the recent events, I think that was a good choice and continues to be so. The gap between the Iraqi civilians and the foregin personel has to be bridged. The Iraqis must be able to trust the UN and that cannot be accomplished across the barrel of a gun.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

And that is why all except 2 UN members decided to stay!

[ralphwiggum 6]

my point is that TBA was dumb enough to start the war and think that they can finish the whole thing with no internatonal support. good job Bush Jr. how does it feel to crawl back?

[denoir 0]

I'm not sure where this will lead. This attack has shown that the UN is in an exposed position. The question is if this will lead to more international support or less.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]The question is if this will lead to more international support or less.

Basically this gives all the opposing nations a chance to force Britain and the US into things they´d never signed before.

The USA in special will have to bleed politically for their fucked operation in Iraq. Anyone here who still says everything is running as planned ? Or at least a bit ?

Coaltion forces have messed it. There is no chance for US forces to stay in Iraq longterm. They have to get assistance from neutral countries to solve that situation, but I doubt it can be solved. The proposals a lot of us, including me, have made earlier in Iraq thread I have become true. US presence in Iraq will not be accepted, neither by Iraqi people, nor by the their neighbour countries and tribes. It´s over down there before it even began.

But one thing for me is sure:

I will not go down there to fix what the US have messed.

Not this time. One time is enough. Congo seems to be a much more pleasant place for the next 3 months.

[ran 0]

Congo seems to be a much more pleasant place for the next 3 months.

agreed , but beware of the mosquitos of the Edward Lake , we've had a fever case due to those last time I went there

[bn880 5]

Bals you will go when it's time to go. I mean, there is no point going when it's like this, when Iraqis start being given their nation back then I think it only makes sense to participate.

Just my opinion, you couldn't pay me enough (if I was in the UN) to go to Iraq now and work amongst the worn out US troops. Quite suicidal.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]The question is if this will lead to more international support or less.

Basically this gives all the opposing nations a chance to force Britain and the US into things they´d never signed before.

Or unfortunately it could be the other way around.  When US forces were attacked it was a US problem.  When the UN is attacked than it is an international problem.  In short the UN and the US now share a common enemy.  This could lead to unconditional international support.

However, as far as I can tell it's not going into that direction.  Several countries that have promised the US to send troops have backed out now as they feel that the security of their troops cannot be guaranteed.  The position of the main players is however still uncertain.  It's possible that the US will get support under the conditions that are in place today.  It's however equally possible that there will be demands for a much larger political role for the UN.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's however equally possible that there will be demands for a much larger political role for the UN.

Why ? The UN doesnt want to get involved into a non-UN signed conflict. They have to provide humanitrian aid, nothing else. It it the responsibility of the occupiers to provide security and safety within the conquered country as the coaltion forces , especially the US have guaranteed to ensure security and safety in Iraq prior and during the war. If they can´t solve that cause of fukced problem-solving srategy, they want others to help them out. It´s the US who is the small guy now. This gives a good chance, doesn´t it ?

Anyway I think most of european countries armies will be sooner or later off to Iraq. No doubt about that.

[denoir 0]

I indeed hope that they will take this opportunity to force the transfer of political control to the UN.  As for UN, it will do whatever its member states and the Security Council say that it should do.  I doubt that there is any difference between a war approved by the UN or an illegal war.

The war in Kosovo was for instance not approved by the UN but still, the UN took the political control of the peacekeeping effort.

Edit:

US seeks wider help in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]...

Mr Powell said he was exploring the possibility of a new Security Council resolution to persuade members states to "do more" in terms of guaranteeing security in Iraq.

But he brushed aside the possibility of the US ceding more authority to the UN, saying it was not an issue he had discussed with Mr Annan.

But so far any discussion at the UN about giving the organisation a greater say in Iraq's political and economic future has faltered in the face of Washington's determination to keep overall military and political control in American hands, says the BBC's Greg Barrow in New York

France, Germany, India and Pakistan are among nations who are unwilling to contribute troops to an operation being run by the occupying powers - the US and Britain.

Member states may now want to help the UN more in its hour of need but diplomats say they are still unlikely to contribute troops as long as the United States, rather than the United Nations, maintains overall control, our correspondent says.

However, both Japan and Thailand are reported to be considering postponing or cancelling the deployment of the troops they had pledged in the wake of the bombing.

..

It's not an easy question since the Iraqis are caught in between. On one hand we have a responsibility as human beings to help them as much as we can. On the other hand the US must learn that there are consequences to its actions. They have to learn that they can't just drop bombs and expect the world to clean its mess up. It's already happened so many times and now would be a good time to say that enough is enough.

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's not an easy question since the Iraqis are caught in between. On one hand we have a responsibility as human beings to help them as much as we can. On the other hand the US must learn that there are consequences to its actions. They have to learn that they can't just drop bombs and expect the world to clean its mess up. It's already happened so many times and now would be a good time to say that enough is enough.

But are we willing to trade more lives to make a point? I'm glad I'm not making that decision.

[ruff 102]

Quote[/b] ]It's however equally possible that there will be demands for a much larger political role for the UN.

Why ? The UN doesnt want to get involved into a non-UN signed conflict. They have to provide humanitrian aid, nothing else. It it the responsibility of the occupiers to provide security and safety within the conquered country as the coaltion forces , especially the US have guaranteed to ensure security and safety in Iraq prior and during the war. If they can´t solve that cause of fukced problem-solving srategy, they want others to help them out. It´s the US who is the small guy now. This gives a good chance, doesn´t it ?

Anyway I think most of european countries armies will be sooner or later off to Iraq. No doubt about that.

i beleive america does need help with the un

and if the countries who offered back off then i believe its a win for terrorism

they have scared countries on helping iraq which i believe really needs help from the international community

[Shashman 0]

Hehe...notice how Acecombat ain't got much to say no more?

[denoir 0]

IRAQ: A BAIT-AND-SWITCH CON JOB

Quote[/b] ]

By Richard Reeves

We were in North Carolina on Tuesday, delivering the last of our children to college. I left my wife at a Borders bookstore along the way to meet a friend for tea, then headed for Durham. I turned on the radio and heard that the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad had been bombed and that Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N.'s special representative in Iraq was dead along with at least a dozen more U.N. employees.

My wife's colleagues and friends. She works for the United Nations, is director of one of their principal offices. I turned around, went back to the bookstore and told her what had happened. "The U.N. will stay in Iraq," she said.

"So will we," I thought, meaning the Americans.

"We," Americans, are victims of one of the great "bait-and-switch" con jobs in recent history, taken into harm's way by history-ignorant ideologues. We were told we were in imminent danger, that a truly evil regime in Baghdad had the means and will to do us immediate and mortal harm, that the fools in "Old Europe" and the rest of the world were just cowards when they disagreed with us or tried to warn us it would not be that simple.

Vice President Richard Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, leaders of the zealots, told us how easy it would be, particularly after the initial fighting ended. War on the cheap (they refused to talk about costs) and then Iraqis would greet us with flowers. "Many other countries will want to be with us when that evil regime is removed from power," Wolfowitz said last October. "Some who now criticize us will want to be part of that very positive opportunity to build a more peaceful and just and representative nation in this criticially important Arab and Muslim country. ... Unlike the Balkans, Iraq's recent history is not one of bloody ethnic conflict but rather one of bloody repression by the regime of all ethnic groups."

On the day after the U.N. bombing, The Financial Times quoted Wolfowitz saying it was a mistake for Defense Department to assume Iraqi troops and police would be in place to maintain law and order as crowds cheered American leaders. The paper introduced his quote by saying, "Wolfowitz, in an unusual moment of candor ..."

The zealots seemed capable of saying anything to "bait" us into war -- and they have prevailed. Their dream, essentially a unilateralist, single-superpower dream, was of a Middle East controlled by the United States, with the rest of the world, led by the United Nations, cleaning up the mess and the details.

Americans, deceived and conned, have woken up to find their magnificently trained, equipped and motivated young soldiers pinned down in a hostile environment, stalked by mujihadeen from other Islamic countries sneaking into the chaos of Iraq. It was not bad enough that terrorists were able to find ways to get into the United States and harm us greatly; we have now set ourselves up on their territory -- as targets.

So what? The odds are that President Bush and his men will tough this out, at least politically. The irony of the moment is that the worse they do, the better off they are. On a strategic level, they will argue that any withdrawal now will only embolden terrorists and governments that secretly support them. That is almost certainly true, as argued in an editorial in Newsday, the Long Island newspaper, on Thursday:

"In the past, Washington has set bad examples of its fortitude by pulling out from Beirut after the bombing of the Marine barracks and from Somalia after the Special Forces casualties in Mogadishu. The world must know this won't happen in Iraq, whatever it takes."

Bush can get away with this because -- like his coalition junior partner, Tony Blair  in England -- his opposition is too intimidated by patriotism to argue with him. Most of the Democrats chasing the chance to run against him next year are now criticizing the war, mildly to be sure, but they voted for it when they had a chance to slow him down and ask what exactly he had in mind. They know, as the president knows, that now that our troops are in harm's way, most politicians must "support" them, whatever that means. That's the "switch."

[red oct 2]

there was a article in my news paper that said Iraqi guards who were protecting the UN building may have been responsible. i'll quote it if i can find it.

edit i have it here.

Quote[/b] ]U.N.-employed Iraqis being questoned

Baghdad, Iraq- U.S. investigators looking into the deadly bombing of the United Nations compound on Tuesday are focusing on the possibility that the attackers were assisted by Iraqi security guards who worked there, a senior U.S. official here said yesterday. The U.S. official, speaking on the condition of the anonymity, said all the security guards at the compound were agents of Iraqi secret services, to whom they regularly reported on U.N. activities before the war. The United Nations continued to employ the guards after the war was over, the official said. The official sad that when investigators began questioning the guards, two of them asserted that they were entitled to "diplomatic immunity" and refused to cooperate. Diplomats working in foreign counties are often entitled to immunity from prosecution by local authorities, but the official said two guards could make no such claim. The investigators are continuing to interrogate the guards, the official said. "We believe the U.N.'s security was seriously compromised," the official said, adding that "we have serrious concerns about the placement of the vehicle" and the timing of the attack. The bomb exploded directly under the third-floor office of the U.N. coordinator for Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, while he was metting with a prominent American human-rights advocate, Arthur C. Helton. Both men were killed, along with several top aides to Vieira de Mello. In New York, a U.N. official reacted skeptically to the assertions. "all of us are trying to get to the bottom of this," said Fred Eckhard, spokesman for the secretary-general, Kofi Annan. "In fact, the secretary-general is sending his security coordinator to Baghdad, which was demolished in the bombing, could be reached for coment.The United Nations had a large pressence in Iraq before the war, running the oil-for-food program and housing teams of weapons inspectors. The U.S official said investigators were trying to determine which, if any, of the guards failed to report to work the day of the attack. Even before the the war, the government of Saddam Hussein was widely known to assign its intelligence agents to guard and guide foreigners who were visiting or living in the country. Suspicions have focused on the guards rather than other local U.N. personnel vecause of their links to Saddam's security service were close. Under the former regime, they had to report to the security service once a week on the activities of U.N. personnel, Western officials said. Even so, U.N. administrators retained the guards after Saddam's government was removed. U.S. officials said thes week that the administrators had also turned down U.S. offer to provide greater security around the building. The U.S. official also questioned the wisdom of U.N. officials who ordered the construction of a concrete wall around the compound. In some places, he pointed out, the was was just 12 feet from the building. Tensions have repeatedly flared between the United States and the U.N. over Iraq. The U.N. has been confined to a marginal role in Iraq since the war and had sought to approachable image to the Iraqi people, partly by shunning the heavy protections surrounding U.S. troops and installataions here. In the attack on Tuesday, the deadliest ever against the organization, a suicide bomber drove a flatbed truck loaded with 1,500 pounds of explosives up to the wall of the compound and set it off. Rescue workers pulled three more bodies out of the rubble yesterday, bringing the total dead to 23. At the scene of the bombing, a green military bachhoe lifted great chunks of the rubble and droped them into trucks to spread out on the ground for later examinaiton. The work paused momentarily to allow two dogs from a Turkish cadaver team to search the wreckage for missing bodies or body parts. None was found. Throughout the day, U.N. staffers came to gape at the wreckage of what had been their offices and to try to salvage the hard drives of their computers. Looking at the remnants of the office of Vieira de Mello, one woman gasped: "How could they have left this place so unprotected?" The possibility that Iraqi security guards had cooperated in the bombing increased suspicions that Vieira de Mello had been a target of the attack, the U.S. official said. The truck pulled up to the wall just below Vieira de Mello's office. "We are very concerned about the possibility" that Viera de Mello was chsen as a target, the official said.

[Pukko 0]

IRAQ: A BAIT-AND-SWITCH CON JOB

Quote[/b] ]

By Richard Reeves

[snip]

Bush can get away with this because -- like his coalition junior partner, Tony Blair  in England -- his opposition is too intimidated by patriotism to argue with him. Most of the Democrats chasing the chance to run against him next year are now criticizing the war, mildly to be sure, but they voted for it when they had a chance to slow him down and ask what exactly he had in mind. They know, as the president knows, that now that our troops are in harm's way, most politicians must "support" them, whatever that means. That's the "switch."

Well, that suports Bernadottes theory pretty well aye?        But how are they going to clear it out in the long run? Catching Saddam or even rebuilding most infrastructure (only to be destroyed again by the ones thinking it suits their agenda) is most likely not enough. Neither oil nor stability comes easily for the coalition with the worlds all terrorists around... will they just let it go to purchase a new 'terror supporting nation' ? Use it to reinforce the need to fight terrorism, and deliver a tasty excuse for leaving Iraq to fight the new evil, even if Iraq is still in complete chaos?

The only thing I can see now to avoid a real terrible chaos in Iraq is to give the UN the complete control over the rebuilding of Iraq. But that would also demand an official humiliation of the Bush & Blair administrations, and that's not going to happen...

I mean, one possible way is that once a resolution would be accepted from the security council, Kofi Annan makes an official speach (preferrably also in the most fitting of Iraq's around 20 languages. As a frieldly jest, but also out of necessity) with a point similar to "We (the UN) did not support, but rather opposed, the invasion of Iraq this spring. The occupying nations are now regreting their war of agression, and we (the UN) are now taking the full responsibility to rebuild the chaos they caused to Iraq. We will now help reconstructing Iraq for the best of the Iraqi people only, with no exceptions and with no secondary goals. We have no hidden agenda, but will do only our very best in the interest of the Iraqi people - with no differance in the worthyness or representation between people of different religous beliefs or ethicities". It would probably have to be quite harsh towards the coalition nations in order to gain trust and support from most Iraqi's. There is no way that could happen in the close future

[ralphwiggum 6]

Two more US troops killed.

Quote[/b] ]The death toll for American service members in Iraq rose again Friday with the announcement of two more deaths.

On Thursday, a member of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force was shot and killed while riding in a sport utility vehicle in congested traffic in Hillah, 60 miles [96 kilometers] south of Baghdad, U.S. Central Command said.

A soldier with the 1st Armored Division died and six others were wounded in a fire in Baghdad's Karadah district, the command said.

Officials said the soldier died from burns and smoke inhalation. The others were evacuated to military hospitals.

Since Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1, 135 U.S. troops have died, including 61 as a result of "hostile fire." Before May, 138 U.S. service members had died in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/22/sprj.irq.main/index.html

[The Frenchman 0]

[Badgerboy 0]

Three British troops killed in Basra

[denoir 0]

I mean, one possible way is that once a resolution would be accepted from the security council, Kofi Annan makes an official speech (preferrably also in the most fitting of Iraq's around 20 languages. As a frieldly jest, but also out of necessity) with a point similar to "We (the UN) did not support, but rather opposed, the invasion of Iraq this spring. The occupying nations are now regreting their war of agression, and we (the UN) are now taking the full responsibility to rebuild the chaos they caused to Iraq. We will now help reconstructing Iraq for the best of the Iraqi people only, with no exceptions and with no secondary goals. We have no hidden agenda, but will do only our very best in the interest of the Iraqi people - with no differance in the worthyness or representation between people of different religous beliefs or ethicities". It would probably have to be quite harsh towards the coalition nations in order to gain trust and support from most Iraqi's.

It's not that simple. It isn't the average Joe Iraqi who is blowing up UN buildings. And the people who did it could not care less about what the UN did or did not do.

Iraq is not becoming another Afghanistan. Iraq is becoming another Israel. And that's a difficult nut to crack. How do that you deal with extremists? By helping the people you can eliminate their recruiting base, but what about the extremists that are operating today?

[Pukko 0]

Ofcourse its not easy. What I wrote above is however the almost impossible first step if the UN should completely take over. Well, maybe such a speach would not need to be so 'accurate' and specific, but would in reality be much more humble. Why I'm thinking about a speech, is because that's the only 'untouched' stuff that would come directly into the populations TV:s. Most other stuff that would surround such a happening is subject to interpretion and modification by the ones with interest and power to do so. I mean like when mr.x says "thats complete nonsense, just look at our new evidence here" or "that's not entirely correct, the truth is...."

What I mean is that some concrete parts of such a process, could be real dangerous. Would the 'Americans' (as in a big part) be able to accept such a message?

Quote[/b] ]Iraq is not becoming another Afghanistan.  Iraq is becoming another Israel.  And that's a difficult nut to crack.  How do that you deal with extremists?  By helping the people you can eliminate their recruiting base, but what about the extremists that are operating today?

I'm not sure if I like the comparison to Israel, but at the moment some similarities exist indeed - militant extremists and a hated occupying people.

As I have claimed since 9/11, I still think the only way to deal with terrorism, is like you wrote "eliminate their recruiting base", or indeed 'removing their reasons - eliminate the hatered'. That's the only thing that can be done - and that's also extremely difficult in it self.

As for the present extremists, if you cannot guarantee 99.9% effectivity (as in very little innocent collateral damage) when killing them, you better leave them alone. If they have no new recruit's it will take years indeed before they are gone, but not too many  - if compared to other solutions those years of occasional terror actions is really the best thing that could happen.

I would say in a good flower power mood: If you can find the extremists - give them some good old loving instead of bullets. If anything, that's the only weapon against hatered... But best is probably to leave them alone, let them come out when they do and blow themselves and some targets up. Just make sure to keep the mood up amongst the 'not yet targets'. Not at all impossible, it just takes some determination and patience. And I'm sure the Iraqi's have quite alot of the later, at least if the UN would gain their trust, both short and long term.

EDIT: Ok, I probably sound a little naive thinking that the UN have all that a great credibility in the mideast. Recalling the distrust many have against the UN (not only extreminsts), and the pathetically unsuccessful UN sanctions against Iraq - 100% UN control is by no means an automatic solution to the problems. But there is no other with as good potential as the UN to succeed. It would be a extremely hard period of gaining trust indeed. But as it is now, there is very little hope... and UN:s credibility is not exactly growing as long as the coalition is occupying Iraq.

[Chill 0]

People have to see the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. USA invaded Iraq with the blessings of Israel. No matter what Saddam was like is irrelivant. If USA wants to be the new peacemakers, there are other conflicts in the world where hey could invade and bring peace.

Iraq will be the new Palestine for the USA and the blood of all killed will be on both the people o the USA and its leaders.

[ralphwiggum 6]

I think it goes without saying that some posts are not even worth replying to.

anyone posting here, please do not get lured into flamebait.

[Schoeler 0]

I'd think that most people with an inkling of logical thinking ability can easily discern the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom fighters, as is directly evinced in their name, fight for freedom, which the United States has given the people of Iraq in this war. Terrorists murder innocent people to further a political or personal agenda, whatever that might be. Now I don't claim that the Iraqi people have been given safety, comfort, or even the standard of living they enjoyed under the Baathists regime, but they have undeniably been given freedom, and judging by their protests and other actions, they aren't at all hesitant to use that freedom either. So, given that the Iraqi people are free now, those who fight the people who freed them, by use of simple logic, cannot be deemed freedom fighters now can they? Besides, its not the U.S.'s intention to occupy Iraq, our governmet simply wants to exploit their resources and make money for us and in the long run, them. Thus anyone opposing the U.S. efforts in Iraq, doesn't have the aim of freeing the Iraqis from occupation or oppression, but rather they are trying to thwart the U.S.'s economic interests in their country. While neither side is behaving morally, the Iraqi resistance is behaving in a manner more closely related to terrorism. I'm going to find it very interesting how they will react towards fellow Iraqis who will be assuming roles currently occupied by the U.S. in the new administration. If it becomes Iraqis killing fellow Iraqis, the whole dynamic might shift.

[denoir 0]

I'd think that most people with an inkling of logical thinking ability can easily discern the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists.  Freedom fighters, as is directly evinced in their name, fight for freedom, which the United States has given the people of Iraq in this war.  Terrorists murder innocent people to further a political or personal agenda, whatever that might be.  Now I don't claim that the Iraqi people have been given safety, comfort, or even the standard of living they enjoyed under the Baathists regime, but they have undeniably been given freedom, and judging by their protests and other actions, they aren't at all hesitant to use that freedom either.  So, given that the Iraqi people are free now, those who fight the people who freed them, by use of simple logic, cannot be deemed freedom fighters now can they?  

Please tell me that your're joking. Or that you are drunk or something. Or that FSPilot has hacked your account. This piece of text is without a doubt the most silly thing I've ever seen you post.

Freedom fighters refers to people fighting for freedom from something. In this case freedom from the US occupation. Iraq as a country has losts its political freedom and sovereignty. And that's the freedom that the Iraqi resistance are fighting for.

Terrorism refers to the methods they are using. "Terrorist" is today a very negatively charged word, but the fact is that many respected governments today have come to power through the use of terrorism.

A good example of successful terrorists are your own founding fathers.