The Iraq Thread 2

[Leveler 0]

Meanwhile, human shields looking at jail time...

Somehow this doesn't surprise me the least. It's a bloody shame!

What are they gonna come up with next? Recording people who search for arab culture in libraries? Turning back investors because they have ties to the "terrorist" countries?..... no wait they are already doing this with patriot act Such bigotry...

[Tamme 0]

Meanwhile, human shields looking at jail time...

Somehow this doesn't surprise me the least. It's a bloody shame!

What are they gonna come up with next? Recording people who search for arab culture in libraries? Turning back investors because they have ties to the "terrorist" countries?.....  no wait they are already doing this with patriot act    Such bigotry...

Recording peoople who search for arab culture in libraries? They're not doing that are they?

[ralphwiggum 6]

she did break the law. when she went to Iraq she should have been smart enough to acknowledge that there was a sanction and anyone who breaks it is breaking the law.

[denoir 0]

That's very debatable. Sanctions are applied on a higher economical level. And it wasn't like she was involved in some commercial trade agreements with Iraq. All she bought was food and tickets for transportation.

And forbidding your citizens to visit another country must be a constitutional violantion. If not, then you need to take a long good look at your constitution. Freedom of movement is one of the corner stones of democracy.

Now, as I see it she could possibly be tried for treason if she collaborated with the Iraqi government in some way after the war started. But as far as I can tell from the article, all she did was travel around and teach in elementary schools.

And if your government feels that prosecuting 61 year old elementary school teachers that act on a humanitarian belief, well, then you're no better than the Soviet Union was in terms of justice.

This is political persecution, nothing more, nothing less.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]All she bought was food and tickets for transportation.

transfer of money from US to Iraq. techincally violation of sanction, if she used any money she earned in US in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]And forbidding your citizens to visit another country must be a constitutional violantion. If not, then you need to take a long good look at your constitution. Freedom of movement is one of the corner stones of democracy.

the teacher clearly was in Iraq and was able to get there on her own. no one stopped her from returning either. so she was not forced to goto Iraq or anywhere else. she can still move around the country. her problem was that she went to Iraq and spent US money.

Quote[/b] ]For three months she travelled around Iraq, guarding oil refineries, teaching in schools and working in hospitals.

she knew her act was political, and i doubt if oil refinery falls into category of humanitarian establishments. her actions were partly humanitarian, but mostly political.

Quote[/b] ]"It was a requirement to send information as to why I was in Iraq," she says.

"It also said the penalties for being there could be as high as a million dollars and up to 12 years in jail."

<snip>

The letter explained that by travelling to the country and spending money there, Miss Fippinger was now liable for prosecution.

the letter said she "could be", not she "is"

Quote[/b] ]"It's in regimes like Saddam Hussein's where that freedom is not allowed."

and she wanted to protect that regime?

[Gollum1 0]

Recording peoople who search for arab culture in libraries? They're not doing that are they?

No.

[hellfish6 7]

Recording peoople who search for arab culture in libraries? They're not doing that are they?

No.

Actually, according to the Patriot Act they can. And they probably are. And nobody is allowed to say anything if that is the case - librarians are required to remain silent about any governmental access to their collections and their customer records.

[theavonlady 2]

librarians are required to remain silent

Well, of course! It's a library after all.

[Major Fubar 0]

librarians are required to remain silent

Well, of course! It's a library after all.

*rolls eyes*

Just curious, are the US public starting to get concerned about the loss of personal freedoms and move towards "Big-Botherism" that the Patriot Act seems to be ushering in? I mean, in theory, what's to stop the patriot act from deigning that all US citizens must have barcodes branded on their necks so they can identify foreign infiltrators more easily...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Just curious, are the US public starting to get concerned about the loss of personal freedoms and move towards "Big-Botherism" that the Patriot Act seems to be ushering in? I mean, in theory, what's to stop the patriot act from deigning that all US citizens must have barcodes branded on their necks so they can identify foreign infiltrators more easily...

Define 'US Public'.

[Major Fubar 0]

@ Sep. 22 2003,16:10)]

Just curious, are the US public starting to get concerned about the loss of personal freedoms and move towards "Big-Botherism" that the Patriot Act seems to be ushering in? I mean, in theory, what's to stop the patriot act from deigning that all US citizens must have barcodes branded on their necks so they can identify foreign infiltrators more easily...

Define 'US Public'.

Well, lets just say in the opinions of people on this board who are US citizens, or opinions of people you know...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ Sep. 22 2003,16:10)]

Just curious, are the US public starting to get concerned about the loss of personal freedoms and move towards "Big-Botherism" that the Patriot Act seems to be ushering in? I mean, in theory, what's to stop the patriot act from deigning that all US citizens must have barcodes branded on their necks so they can identify foreign infiltrators more easily...

Define 'US Public'.

Well, lets just say in the opinions of people on this board who are US citizens, or opinions of people you know...

I'm very concerned, and so are nearly all the people I know who pick up a newspaper now and then. The rest are happy as clams, though.

[hellfish6 7]

Quote[/b] ]Hi Hellfish6

I, for one, haven't lost confidence in the US Military.

Are US profesional soldiers/voters upset at being left in Iraq after the planned date?

Well, there was no real planned date to withdraw. The war was officially over on May 1st, but nobody ever said "US forces will be out of Iraq in a year." Well, they said that before the war started, and everyone forgot about it. They also said that we wouldn't need several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq, but everyone also forgot about that. Now we're nearing the 200,000 mark.

But, yes, troop morale is not high. I wouldn't call it poor, but from what I hear from friends over there and news reports, nobody in Iraq really wants to be there right now. The 3rd Infantry Division was, from what I understand, on the verge of a division-wide mental breakdown before they got (very quickly) rotated home because most of them had been in Iraq and Kuwait for over a year - half that time either fighting or being shot at, with little contact with home and no clear sense of mission.

The American people are, I think, pretty upset. Not many want the troops over there, but nobody wants to quit what we started, either.

Quote[/b] ]

I think they did as well as they could with the idiots that were making the decisions.

Given time (two or three years) could an Iraqi leader achieve a Ho Chi Mihn?

I don't know. I imagine it's possible, especially if the US doesn't get it's head out of it's ass. It's one thing to occupy the country and it's oil wells, it's a totally different thing to provide basic services to 25 million people. We've done alright with the oil (save for the occasional sabotage) but we still can't provide electricity and water for much of Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country.

Quote[/b] ]

Yes, we proved to the world that we could deploy three divisions thousands of miles away and take over an entire country with those same forces in about a month. But three divisions wasn't enough to occupy the country - and we're learning the hard way that a lot more troops are needed and a lot better political guidance required before things start changing.

In order to achieve the desired occupation troop levels (probably 5 times what is there now) will the US have to reintroduce the Draft?

It's a possibility, but I wouldn't say it's likely. Right now, something like 50% of the entire regular active duty US Army combat forces is in Iraq. Another 25% or so are deployed (Korea, Afghanistan, etc.) and the rest are either recovering from deployment (like the 3rd Infantry), are undeployable (the new Stryker brigades) or on ready reaction/preparation for deployment (82nd Airborne, Rangers, 25th Infantry).

Right now, many of the National Guard units (our militia) are being called up for active duty. My old unit just came off a year-long deployment to Germany and are now getting ready for a six-month tour in Bosnia. There is another National Guard brigade already in Iraq (Florida's 52nd Inf Brigade, with units from Indiana as well) and more are getting ready to go, or replace active duty units deployed.

The good news is that the Marine Corps are almost entirely uncommitted, save for the MEUs. Both Marine divisions are currently back in the States ready for deployment.

If troop levels in Iraq and/or Afghanistan go up (it won't take much to do that - if we start getting weekly death tolls in the double digits, you might see a larger deployment) then the military will start calling up retirees and others in the inactive reserve. Once that is exhausted, only then will we have a draft. So, you can see, it's possible, but not likely.

Quote[/b] ]

And of course, nobody in America is going to get impeached. I wish Bush would get impeached, but it's not going to happen as long as his fellow Republicans remain in control of the Congress. The American people don't impeach the President - the American House of Representatives does.

Are the US about to go into elections for the Senate or for Congress?

No. Next election is concurrent with the Presidential election in November of 2004. Every two years, the entire US House of Representatives gets elected, along with 1/3 of the Senate. Representatives hold office for 2 year terms, Senators for 6 years and presidents for 4.

Quote[/b] ]

Is the current senate majority a slender one?

IIRC, yes - only like 2 or 3 votes. But a simple majority (51%) is all that is required for most measures and decisions to pass through the Senate. A simple majority is easy to get when you have 53 of 100 people on your side. It also makes it very easy to prevent any opposing legislation to get passed.

Quote[/b] ]

Is there an air apparent being readied as Republican presedential candidate?

No. George W. Bush will be running again. He can get elected for one more term. If you mean Democrats, no, there is nobody right now who seems particularly popular. Howard Dean has a lot of support, but very few regular people know who he is, and most of his money comes from individual people, not corporations and organizations. There are several Senators who are seeking the Democratic nomination for President as well, notably Richard Gephard (Senate Democratic Leader) and John Kerry (a former US Navy SEAL and Vietnam veteran).

Quote[/b] ]

Is the US and UK at the start of a Vietnam style nightmare?

Not right now, because there is no clear Iraqi resistance similar to the VC. Right now, it seems like the attacks on US forces are random and uncoordinated. Former disgruntled soldiers, mujahideens, bandits, etc. No single, organized enemy. Not yet, anyway.

Quote[/b] ]

Perhaps a look at the historical data at US involvement in the start of that conflict might be in order. What was the situation six months into action after the Air Cav were introduced?

Totally different situation. The Air Cav were introduced in 1965, three years after the war really started in Vietnam. They fought an already organized Viet Cong who had the active support of China, North Vietnam and the Soviet Union. In Iraq right now, we're not fighting an organized enemy. And these guerrillas are not receiving much support from any countries, if they are getting support at all.

[hellfish6 7]

@ Sep. 22 2003,01:17)]

@ Sep. 22 2003,16:10)]

Just curious, are the US public starting to get concerned about the loss of personal freedoms and move towards "Big-Botherism" that the Patriot Act seems to be ushering in? I mean, in theory, what's to stop the patriot act from deigning that all US citizens must have barcodes branded on their necks so they can identify foreign infiltrators more easily...

Define 'US Public'.

Well, lets just say in the opinions of people on this board who are US citizens, or opinions of people you know...

I'm very concerned, and so are nearly all the people I know who pick up a newspaper now and then. The rest are happy as clams, though.

I agree. The majority of Americans are willing to trade their freedom for security - even if that security is only imagined.

[hellfish6 7]

I'm on a posting spree!

Iraq is up for sale!

[ralphwiggum 6]

it wasn't about oil - it was about how to use/transport oil

according to Wolfowitz, the war isn't over, and it is techinically true. in other words, the war is still going on. way to go CentCom. this shows how much US military is incompetent to wage war.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Another attack on UN

Quote[/b] ]A powerful car bomb has rocked the Iraqi capital near the U.N. headquarters, the Coalition Public Information Center said this morning. "As the [car] was going through this security check ... the bomb detonated -- both the suicide bomber and the Iraqi security guard killed ... and eight other people wounded at the same time," CNN's Nic Robertson said a U.S. military spokesman told reporters.

Quote[/b] ]3 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq

Three U.S. soldiers were killed Saturday in two separate attacks in Iraq, according to the Coalition Press Information Center

[theavonlady 2]

The majority of Americans are willing to trade their freedom for security - even if that security is only imagined.

Imagine this!

[denoir 0]

The majority of Americans are willing to trade their freedom for security - even if that security is only imagined.

Everybody does. Put a gun to a man's head and tell him to be quiet. Do you think he will obey or loudly protest the violation of his freedom of speech?

Security is a necessity while freedom is a luxury. The government has to first protects the lives of its citizens before it can allow political niceties. People value their lives more than anything.

However, one must have constant vigilance about the security apparatus being abused. The security measures must be truly necessary before being implemented.

I have no problem with a government imposing restrictions on individual rights if it is absolutely necessry to keep the people alive. I do however have a problem when this process is abused and security measures are introduced as a grab for power.

Then of course there is the question of intelligence agencies and police agencies. Their work would be much easier if every citizen of the country had a surgically implanted ButtCam. The government does however neither represent the police nor the intelligence agencies, but the people. So there is always a delicate balance between recognizing real security threats and deal with them through minimal obstruction of the individual freedoms and mindless paranoia that comes if you follow all the advice of your intelligence officers.

"If we lock everybody up, then there won't be any criminals on the street." -Optimal police solution

[canukausiuka 1]

The majority of Americans are willing to trade their freedom for security - even if that security is only imagined.

Everybody does. Put a gun to a man's head and tell him to be quiet. Do you think he will obey or loudly protest the violation of his freedom of speech?

Security is a necessity while freedom is a luxury. The government has to first protects the lives of its citizens before it can allow political niceties. People value their lives more than anything.

However, one must have constant vigilance about the security apparatus being abused. The security measures must be truly necessary before being implemented.

I have no problem with a government imposing restrictions on individual rights if it is absolutely necessry to keep the people alive. I do however have a problem when this process is abused and security measures are introduced as a grab for power.

Then of course there is the question of intelligence agencies and police agencies. Their work would be much easier if every citizen of the country had a surgically implanted ButtCamâ„¢. The government does however neither represent the police nor the intelligence agencies, but the people. So there is always a delicate balance between recognizing real security threats and deal with them through minimal obstruction of the individual freedoms and mindless paranoia that comes if you follow all the advice of your intelligence officers.

"If we lock everybody up, then there won't be any criminals on the street." -Optimal police solution

Wow, I have to say I agree with Denoir here.  The first job of any government is to keep its citizens safe.  Maintaining rights is important, too, and I am not fond of that being infringed.  What worries me most about our rights is that they are being attacked from both sides.  The far right wants improved security measures, giving the government more power to pry into our lives.  And the far left wants to limit our rights to the rights that it endorses.  I could find examples of both without too much of a problem, which leads me to wonder: what kind of freedoms will my descendants enjoy?

In the short term though, I don't mind increased government power to view our records.  The government, to me, is above any individual in its system, since in theory it is the collective will of the society.  I do mind the potential for abuse though.  That's the problem with government, and one that has been a problem since the United States were first formed: how do you give the government enough power to accomplish what needs to be done, without giving it so much power that it can trample its own citizens?  It's a nasty balancing act, at best.

May God Bless America  

not because we deserve it,

but because we need it

[Guest ####]

I still think Sweden is the real enemy, they have been so quiet about all this, and that Ikea Funiture! Damn you Sweden!

[denoir 0]

From CNN Article:

Quote[/b] ]Just two weeks ago,something like 60 percent of Americans thought it was worth going into Iraq and fighting to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Now Americans are divided. I think one reason is, that speech the president gave to the American people on September 7, in which he cited an $87 billion bill for the reconstruction of Iraq, was massively unpopular. Americans are asking, why are we spending $87 billion in Iraq, when that money is badly needed in the United States?

Well, well, so much for the, how did Schoeler put it? "the determination to help the Iraqi people". Sure, willing to help if it doesn't cost you anything. But you see it does not work that way and a drunken squirrel should have realised before the war that it would take some time and some investments before Iraq's oil can be jacked. So why the big surprise now?

It's so bloody typical: people have no problem with creating a mess, but when it comes to cleaning it up then they start having second thoughts.

[theavonlady 2]

Well, well, so much for the, how did Schoeler put it? "the determination to help the Iraqi people". Sure, willing to help if it doesn't cost you anything.

This is inaccurate. There's lots of room between "doesn't cost you anything" and $87 billion where the general concensus still would have said "yes".

No one ever said this is a zero cost operation.

Here, too, it's the administration's fumbling or fudging of original calculations that has caused the change of opinion.

[denoir 0]

$87 billion is a reasonable sum for a project of that magnitude. Of course, had the UN been involved from the beginning that sum would be much smaller for the US. The problem for Americans is that the sum is so large that they will directly feel the consequences of it. And so now they're having second thoughts.

I'm however with Bush on this one. USA does now have a responsibility to Iraq to restore it to a functioning country at least to the level it was under Saddam. You break it, you pay.

I do however hope that he won't get UN assistance. Enough is enough. There's a disturbing pattern of USA bombing and the world rebuilding the resulting ruins on the ground. It's a vicious circle that has to broken. So I say: let USA pay the full price of its actions and hopefully it will think twice about future war adventurism.

[Goeth 0]

I do however hope that he won't get UN assistance. Enough is enough. There's a disturbing pattern of USA bombing and the world rebuilding the resulting ruins on the ground. It's a vicious circle that has to broken. So I say: let USA pay the full price of its actions and hopefully it will think twice about future war adventurism.

I´m with you on this one.