The Iraq Thread 2

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Six dead according to this...

Quote[/b] ]An American Black Hawk helicopter has been forced down near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, killing all six soldiers on board.

[Crazysheep 1]

Wow, another BW down? This is terrible, maybe it DOES have the potential to be another 'Nam after all.......

At first I highly doubted it, as a few weeks ago US soldiers were dying at a rate of less than one a day, now they are dying in large amounts.....things can only get worse, I wonder how this will turn out?

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/11/07/lynch.interview/index.html

Quote[/b] ]Responding to questions that the military may have exaggerated the danger of her nighttime rescue from a Nasiriya hospital by U.S. commandos, she said, "Yeah, I don't think it happened quite like that."

However, she also said that anyone "in that kind of situation would obviously go in with force, not knowing who was on the other side of the door."

Quote[/b] ]Lynch, 20, a former private first class from Palestine, West Virginia, who has since left the Army, said the way the military publicized her rescue also bothers her, including the filming of it.

"It does [bother me] that they used me as a way to symbolize all this stuff," she said. "It's wrong.

"I don't know why they filmed it, or why they say the things they [say], you know. ... All I know was that I was in that hospital hurting. ... I needed help. I wanted out of there. It didn't matter to me if they would have come in shirts and blank guns; it wouldn't have mattered to me. I wanted out of there."

But Lynch said she considers her rescuers "my heroes." "I'm so thankful that they did what

Quote[/b] ]Iraqi doctors who treated her after her capture disputed the claims of rape, The Associated Press reported.

Dr. Mahdi Khafazji, an orthopedic surgeon at Nasiriyah's main hospital who performed surgery on Lynch to repair a fractured femur, told the AP he found no signs that she was raped or sodomized.

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

Quote[/b] ]FORT CARSON, Colorado (CNN) -- The U.S. Army Thursday dismissed a cowardice charge against a National Guardsman shaken by the sight of an Iraqi soldier's corpse, which had been cut in half by machine gun fire.

The cowardice charge carries a penalty of up to death. No one since the Vietnam War has faced that charge.

Instead Sgt. Georg Andreas Pogany, 32, faces a reduced charge of dereliction of duty. A military court hearing scheduled for Friday has been postponed.

The sight upset Pogany enough that he asked for help from his superiors to deal with panic attacks.

Pogany's attorney said his client is grateful the cowardice charge was dismissed because "the stigma that comes with being charged as a coward is rather high."

Richard Travis said the army might be more reluctant to charge someone with cowardice. He said he was disappointed the military is still pursuing charges against his client.

Pogany, an intelligence sergeant who had been attached to a Special Forces unit to interrogate Iraqis, arrived in Iraq a little more than a month ago. Three days later he witnessed the killing of the Iraqi, who was armed with a rocket-propelled grenade.

Days later, he was put on a plane and sent home.

[Jinef 2]

*cough*told ya so*cough*

Come on guys! Where is your patriotism!? All these sad faces are in vain, these brave boys are glad to be dying for their country! It's all part of that glorious crusade against the terrorists!

....and let's slip back to reality

It really is quite sad how all this has turned out, although maybe having Iraq as a permanent grounding area for the US military with a nice steady trickle of bodies floating back might stop this happening again? Anyway, the US and UK are in the wrong big style but nothing happens, the politicians have a sigh of release when a another soldier dies as it keeps us from thinking about the lack of WMDs...

But of course the goal posts will shift, the aim of the mission will change to accomodate what they have achieved, not what they wanted to. So basically they will soon be saying 'We have with great success been able to stay in Iraq for nearly a year now'.

This is what we set out to do, God Bless America!

"If you tell people something enough times they will believe it" - Joe, the first doctor.

I basically think it is all quite amusing, i had predicted more resistance at the beginning but it seems that the Iraqis have tolerance levels far greater than most of us.

It is the largest load of bollocks in quite awhile, comparable to the film Titanic. Now that is sad

[The Frenchman 0]

Neat! The HBO movie "Live from Baghdad" is on. I better take notes for this thread.

[Acecombat 0]

WHO should we believe in this world/media full of DAMN LYING MEDIA PEOPLE...

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]Wow, another BW down? This is terrible, maybe it DOES have the potential to be another 'Nam after all.......

At first I highly doubted it, as a few weeks ago US soldiers were dying at a rate of less than one a day, now they are dying in large amounts.....things can only get worse, I wonder how this will turn out?

A few choppers down doesn't give this the potential to be another 'Nam at all. The US clearly has the upper hand over the enemy, and in this war, the enemy has at the moment, zero military equiptment, and is probably relying on weapons caches with limited supply and not lines of being refreshed constantly.

Honestly, I think the Coalition did a really bad job at trying to return Iraq and it's people back towards their everyday lives.

Had they returned electricity, water and other public amenities as soon as control was established, then the people might not have had such an anti-US feeling which they appear to have right now.

Mind you, I think people walking around with AK's is just wrong. The US really should be treating them as unlawful combatants and disarming as many citizens as it can, whether it be by force or in exchange for food, or employment.

Iraq will get back to normality, but it will just take time. Be patient and it will happen.

[denoir 0]

Six dead according to this...

Quote[/b] ]An American Black Hawk helicopter has been forced down near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, killing all six soldiers on board.

I read this Washington Post article. It was the same ole', until I saw this section:

Quote[/b] ]

The U.S. military responded to Friday's attack with a show of force in Tikrit, a city about 90 miles northwest of Baghdad where Hussein's clan has its roots. Before midnight, two Air Force F-15s dropped 500-pound bombs on the spot where the attack may have been launched, and artillery fired several rounds near the site.

U.S. forces, backed by tanks and armored personnel carriers, destroyed vacant houses said to have been used by attackers in the past, and the military reimposed an 11 p.m. curfew on a nearby neighborhood. Under cover of darkness, soldiers from the 4th Infantry staged raids and arrested at least eight people.

"We've lost six of our comrades today. We're going to make it unequivocally clear what power we have at our disposal," said Col. James Hickey, commander of the division's 1st Brigade.

The U.S. military said it had not determined whether the Black Hawk was brought down by mechanical failure or an attack.

Ok, so they're not sure that it was shot down and what do they do? As reventge they drop bombs blindly and start making arrests, blowing up buildings and harassing the civilian population.

Yeah as history has shown that kind of tactics worked well for the Nazis.

[Acecombat 0]

Reaganism With Neocon Flavor

David von Drehle, The Washington Post

WASHINGTON, 8 November 2003 — The name is Bush but the philosophy was pure Reagan.

President Bush Thursday explained his approach to the Middle East by drawing a comparison to President Reagan’s stance 20 years ago in the Cold War. “A number of critics were dismissive’’ of Reagan’s idealistic belief in the superiority of liberty as both a moral right and as a way of organizing society, Bush said. Reagan lashed his foreign policy to the unproven faith that “freedom had a momentum that would not be halted,’’ as Bush put it — and ignored people who called him “simplistic and naive, and even dangerous.’’ Bush believes Reagan was “entirely correct,’’ and that what worked in the 1980s against the Soviet empire will work again in the Middle East. Reagan’s critics are now his critics, Bush suggested, and Reagan proved them wrong.

But not even Reagan dared press Reaganism this far. Operating in the superpower standoff of the Cold War, Reagan did not risk pushing the closed and autocratic governments of the Middle East to embrace human liberty. Rather, he pursued essentially the same Middle East strategy that his predecessors, Republican and Democrat, had embraced, favoring stability over modernization and an unpleasant status quo over a very risky gamble on progress.

“Even Reagan himself implicitly fenced off the Middle East,’’ said one administration official.

Bush’s speech at the National Endowment for Democracy was long and highly rhetorical. He announced a break with “60 years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East,’’ a policy that “did nothing to make us safe.’’ Instead, the US will pursue “a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.’’

What this means in practical terms — beyond the obvious in Iraq — was left unsaid.

But as rhetoric, the speech was Reaganism distilled, the 150-proof stuff, and revealed the extent to which ideas that were being batted around on a lonely fringe of politics 40 years ago have become the governing worldview of the global hyperpower. In the age-old foreign policy struggle between sunny idealism and ice-cold cunning, the idealists are at the controls — surprising, perhaps, given that Bush’s father leaned, by training and temperament, in the other direction. “He’s a Reaganite,’’ said former Rep. Vin Weber, who introduced Bush at Thursday’s speech. “Bush operates from the ... very strong belief that ideas rule the world.’’ That belief comes not from “41,’’ as the elder President Bush is known in the family. It comes from 40.

“I came to Congress the year Reagan was elected president,’’ Weber continued, “and that’s what I remember about Ronald Reagan: He was a person who surrounded himself with men who believe in ideas, and he had an unshakable confidence that those ideas would prevail.’’

Reagan and his British soulmate, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, have talked about the political loneliness of free-market optimists post-World War II. Both drew sustenance from the writings of an Austrian economist and philosopher named Friedrich von Hayek, who maintained that freedom — to own property, to think and speak freely, to live under the rule of law — was essential to economic progress. Centrally controlled states could not compete over the long term with free markets, Hayek taught. Both leaders applied this theory first inside their own conservative movements. Once, during the 1970s, Thatcher slammed a copy of Hayek’s “Constitution of Liberty’’ onto a table at a Conservative Party conference and declared, “This is what we believe.’’ Upon gaining power, she and Reagan worked to free up markets in their own countries. And they hinged their foreign policy on the idea that the Cold War need not end in stalemate — it could be won, using the lever of liberty. Even within the Republican Party, they were many skeptics.

“Remember,’’ Weber said, “there was a big debate inside the Republican Party over realpolitik versus some more idealistic approach to foreign policy. Richard Nixon was the ultimate practitioner of hardheaded tactics, and his presidency was, at that time, just a few years in the past.’’

Bush grounded his speech in that same philosophy. It is “an extraordinary, undeniable fact,’’ he said, that “over time, free nations grow stronger and dictatorships grow weaker.’’ In the picture Bush painted, however, the conflict between the idealist approach and the pragmatic approach simply disappeared. To him, the tactical imperative — security in an age of terror — demands an idealistic approach. “In the long run,’’ he said, “stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of economic stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export.’’

Not everyone was convinced by Bush’s philosophical purity, however. Even among his fellow conservatives, there were questions about some of the things he said, or left unsaid.

Some questioned Bush’s assertion that there are no cultural or religious impediments to democracy in the Middle East, only “political and economic’’ ones.

“I suspect that tends to underestimate the pain of transformation, the extent to which religion and culture will have to be overcome in order to adapt to liberal and democratic ways,’’ said Peter Berkowitz, a political and legal philosopher who has examined the US-supported effort to liberalize tiny Kuwait.

Other critics of the speech noted that Bush chose not to talk about the still-uncertain fate of liberty even in Reagan’s defeated “evil empire.’’ In recent days, Russian President Vladimir Putin has jailed one of the country’s leading capitalists and seized control of his oil empire — all without provoking action from the Bush administration. Michael McFaul, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, called on Bush to put more action behind his rhetoric.

“It was one of the boldest, clearest statements on the promotion of liberty ever made by an American president,’’ McFaul said of Bush’s speech. “I now hope to see policy follow the rhetoric. On Russia, it most certainly does not.’’

And like Reagan before him, Bush was faulted for saying one thing and doing another — extolling liberty while cooperating in the war on terror with despots and autocrats throughout the Middle East and Asia.

Ultimately, the only test of an idea is time. Bush promised that his gamble in Iraq will prove to be “a watershed event in the global democratic revolution.’’ The proof is yet to come.

“Victory vindicates and defeat indicts,’’ said one White House strategist. “And we’re not going to know for a long time.’’

[Pukko 0]

Speaking of Reaganism, I would like to promote the Mein Kampf IIâ„¢ website here again: http://www.newamericancentury.org

Start out with looking at the short Statement of Principles (from 1997). Here you will see big parts of TBA's members, like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz signing in agreement:

Quote[/b] ]We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

......snip.....

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Also take a look at the document: Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century (from 2000).

Interesting parts here are:

- First column page 1 (the need for an enemy, the statement that USA has won 3 wars in the past century and an introduction of the ever repeated Pax Americana).

- Figure on page 2 (the differance between the cold war and the '21st century').

- Top left on page 51 (the need of 'a new pearl harbour' to enforce the policy).

[Crazysheep 1]

Jessica Lynch condemns the Pentagon for using her as propaganda

[Badgerboy 0]

'In the Line of Fire with John Simpson - Panorama'

Tonight at 21:00 GMT on BBC1

It should be worth seeing. It concerns the incident where a pair of F15's attacked a column of journalists, resistance fighters, and US Special Forces. The footage is rather harrowing. (Blood running down the camera lense).

I remember watching the event when it unfolded, but hopefully this should go into a little more depth.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Jessica Lynch condemns the Pentagon for using her as propaganda

diane sawyer's interview excerpts.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Primetime/US/Jessica_Lynch_031106.html

[theavonlady 2]

diane sawyer's interview excerpts.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Primetime/US/Jessica_Lynch_031106.html

Now you've done it! Placebo's gonna close this thread!

Posting article links without relevant text quotes! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

But have no fear - Avon's here!

Quote[/b] ]"I did not shoot, not a round, nothing," she tells Sawyer. "When we were told to lock and load, that's when my weapon jammed … I did not shoot a single round … I went down praying to my knees. And that's the last I remember."

Quote[/b] ]"I don't look at myself as a hero," she adds. "My heroes are Lori [Pfc. Lori Piestewa], the soldiers that are over there, the soldiers that were in that car beside me, the ones that came and rescued me."

[EiZei 0]

'In the Line of Fire with John Simpson - Panorama'

Tonight at 21:00 GMT on BBC1

It should be worth seeing. It concerns the incident where a pair of F15's attacked a column of journalists, resistance fighters, and US Special Forces. The footage is rather harrowing. (Blood running down the camera lense).

I remember watching the event when it unfolded, but hopefully this should go into a little more depth.

Saw it partly on BBC world and I must say that it is worth seeing, tracers going about 1m from the cameraman etc., not excatly my dream job.

And think I also saw some poor reporters guts partly on the grass, the poor bastard died later.

[Powerslide 0]

The US clearly has the upper hand over the enemy, and in this war, the enemy has at the moment, zero military equiptment, and is probably relying on weapons caches with limited supply and not lines of being refreshed constantly.

Upper hand in the war?

*Laughs*

What war, it's supposed to be over. Now it's a different conflict, the enemy you don't know is 10 times more dangerous then the one you do. Where there is opposition there is someone itching to sell and funnel arms to them. They may have a cache yes, but don't think there isn't more where that comes from. If the Palestinians can get arms freely, which they do, don't thing the Iraqis can't. I'm sure Syria and Iran have plenty. I said they would lose one guy a day as long as they are there, my estimates need to be revamped after last week. And you know what? It will never end as long as they are there. If they stayed 100 000 years, it would happen daily. They are not in their element and have worn out their welcome. Even if they gave them infrastructure as good as the US they will still die in attacks.

[denoir 0]

Say goodbye to the Iraqi Governing Council. What a surprise  

Quote[/b] ]

US 'wants Iraq council scrapped'

The Iraqi Governing Council's days may be numbered

Reports from the United States suggest the Bush administration has become so frustrated with the Iraqi Governing Council, it may be looking to scrap it.

The Washington Post newspaper quotes a senior US official as saying the administration has become alarmed at the IGC's failure to make important decisions.

According to the paper, the US is actively looking for an alternative strategy.

It has reportedly become frustrated by individual members on the US-appointed council who, officials say, spend all their time promoting private agendas rather than making important collective decisions.

'Potential to govern'

But Richard Perle, a right-wing Pentagon adviser, said in a TV interview he would be recommending against making changes.

"The Iraqi Governing Council consists of people who represent large elements of the Iraqi society," he said.

"If we're impatient, we shouldn't be because they have the potential to govern the country and govern it effectively."

Although the council does include figures from each of Iraq's Sunni, Shia and Kurdish groups, its members were handpicked by the Americans and there have been doubts about whether some represent anyone but themselves.

New look

The council was set up soon after Baghdad was taken, when many in the US assumed the transition to an elected government would be a matter of months.

Now it is acknowledged by all sides this is untenable.

Some like Senator Joe Biden think a fresh look now would provide a further chance of improved international co-operation.

"I'd use that as the entree with the French to say we can work out an arrangement here," he said.

One possibility being reconsidered, according to quoted US officials, is that of an interim sovereign body as in Afghanistan - a model that the French have been advocating in Iraq for some time.

[theavonlady 2]

Say goodbye to the Iraqi Governing Council. What a surprise  

Just for the record, I believe the source of this information is this Washington Post article. Bottom line:

Quote[/b] ]Occupation authority officials complain that council members are frequently absent from meetings or send delegates to sit in while leaders travel or stay at home. In Washington, U.S. officials voiced complaints last week that council members are overly concerned about their own political and economic interests at the expense of acting decisively. The Bush administration is considering replacing the U.S.-appointed body with a large, representative assembly specifically tasked to move the constitutional and elections process forward.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Say goodbye to the Iraqi Governing Council. What a surprise  

Just for the record, I believe the source of this information is this Washington Post article. Bottom line:

Quote[/b] ]Occupation authority officials complain that council members are frequently absent from meetings or send delegates to sit in while leaders travel or stay at home. In Washington, U.S. officials voiced complaints last week that council members are overly concerned about their own political and economic interests at the expense of acting decisively. The Bush administration is considering replacing the U.S.-appointed body with a large, representative assembly specifically tasked to move the constitutional and elections process forward.

notice the word 'replace'.

TBA had no post war plan, and can't get a thing going on.

[denoir 0]

Say goodbye to the Iraqi Governing Council. What a surprise  

Just for the record, I believe the source of this information is this Washington Post article. Bottom line:

Quote[/b] ]Occupation authority officials complain that council members are frequently absent from meetings or send delegates to sit in while leaders travel or stay at home. In Washington, U.S. officials voiced complaints last week that council members are overly concerned about their own political and economic interests at the expense of acting decisively. The Bush administration is considering replacing the U.S.-appointed body with a large, representative assembly specifically tasked to move the constitutional and elections process forward.

Hmm, frequently absent? Acting to improve their own agendas?

It sounds to me like the Iraqi have learned the basics of a parliamentary system. You could say exactly those things about the members of the US congress as well (and any parliament system).

[theavonlady 2]

It sounds to me like the Iraqi have learned the basics of a parliamentary system. You could say exactly those things about the members of the US congress as well (and any parliament system).

I was thinking of our own local yokles here as well.

The difference is ...... is .......... that ............. well .......... um ...............

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

The US are now going to help Turkey with their genocide against the Kurds....

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/11/sprj.irq.cia/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A recent CIA assessment of Iraq warns the security situation will worsen across the country, not just in Baghdad but in the north and south as well, a senior administration source told CNN Tuesday.

The report is a much more dire and ominous assessment of the situation than has previously been forwarded through official channels, this source said. It was sent to Washington Monday by the CIA station chief in Iraq.

It was not immediately clear if the assessment was what prompted the hastily arranged trip to Washington by Iraq civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer, who met Tuesday at the White House with President Bush and senior national security officials.

The report was discussed during the high-level meetings, sources said.

The senior administration source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Bremer agreed with the CIA assessment and added his personal comments to the station chief's memo.

In his Veterans Day speech Tuesday, Bush referred to "recent reporting" of cooperation between Saddam loyalists and terrorist elements from outside Iraq.

"Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists may have different long-term goals, but they share a near-term strategy: to terrorize Iraqis and to intimidate America and our allies," Bush told the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"In the last few months, the adversary has changed its composition and method, and our coalition is adapting accordingly."

Another senior administration official said those points in the speech were based on a U.S. intelligence report about the security situation.

A third U.S. official said the intelligence report was from the CIA and that it highlights what the official conceded are several "major ongoing security issues."

That official refused to characterize the report in further detail. But the senior administration source who did discuss the report said it essentially says things are "gonna get worse" across Iraq.

The source said the memo notes that:

• More Iraqis are "flooding to the ranks of the guerrillas." Many of these Iraqis are Sunnis who had previously been "on the sidelines" but now believe they can "inflict bodily harm" on the Americans.

[*] Ammunition is "readily available," making it much easier to mount attacks.

The assessment also notes that organization and coordination are getting "tighter" among foreign insurgents -- extremists including but not limited to al Qaeda and Hezbollah -- and those "displaced people" who lost power

of course, as a rule of thumb in intels, take with a grain of salt.

[Mr. Snrub 0]

A few choppers down doesn't give this the potential to be another 'Nam at all. The US clearly has the upper hand over the enemy, and in this war, the enemy has at the moment, zero military equiptment, and is probably relying on weapons caches with limited supply and not lines of being refreshed constantly.

Honestly, I think the Coalition did a really bad job at trying to return Iraq and it's people back towards their everyday lives.

Had they returned electricity, water and other public amenities as soon as control was established, then the people might not have had such an anti-US feeling which they appear to have right now.

Mind you, I think people walking around with AK's is just wrong. The US really should be treating them as unlawful combatants and disarming as many citizens as it can, whether it be by force or in exchange for food, or employment.

Iraq will get back to normality, but it will just take time. Be patient and it will happen.

I think that when people say that "Iraq could turn/has turned into another Vietnam" they mean that the United States has committed itself to a situation that it will find incredibly hard to extract itself from, not that the US faces combat similar to that of Vietnam.

However, the similarities between the two are there. In both cases the US, an industrial power with enormous conventional military capabilities, is fighting a non-industrial, non-conventional conflict. The guerilla tactics employed by Iraqi combatants are similar to those employed by other paramilitary forces in previous conflicts - Vietnam and Algeria are but two that spring to mind.

The problem with taking AKs away from Iraqis is that guns are pretty much an integral part of Iraqi society, and have been for some time - many Iraqis hang on to theirs to protect their business and families. As you say, offering them incentives for voluntarily handing their guns over is a good idea, but if you forcibly remove them, coalition forces are just going to further alienate themselves from the Iraqi population.

You are spot on with anti-US sentiment as a result of the slow return of power and water, and I personally think this one of the major mistakes the coalition made in the early days of reconstruction. In reality, it would have taken something pretty unrealistic (ie. instant peace and prosperity) for all Iraqis to welcome the coalition as their saviours, but quicker repairs of infrastructure would have been a good show of faith.

As for normality, a great deal of Iraqis (especially the younger, radical Iraqis) have only known life under a dictator and have become accustomed to such rule. A sudden shift to virtual anarchy, then (hopefully) democracy is just the wrong way to foster democratic values. Change must come from the inside, and this tends to be a gradual process.

[theavonlady 2]

The problem with taking AKs away from Iraqis is that guns are pretty much an integral part of Iraqi society, and have been for some time - many Iraqis hang on to theirs to protect their business and families.

I was not aware that Saddam let everyone in the country tote automatic rifles.

Where did you get this from?