The Iraq Thread 2

[denoir 0]

I think that Putin put it fairly well, when he said that Iraq does not risk becoming another Vietnam, but that it is on the good way of becoming a new Afghanistan like it was during the Soviet invasion.

It's a low intensity conflict and the same thing that happened in Afghanistan is happening in Iraq now - all forms of muslim radicals, terrorists and freedom fighters are immigrating to fight the occupying force.

[Blake 0]

I remember saying same thing about American occupation of Afganistan but that has not materialized and it has become more of an international operation. I still believe that Afgans see Americans more as the ones that crushed the oppressive Taliban regime, unlike Soviets which overthrew their legimate government, invaded and installed communist puppet regime. Their methods were also more rough, same kind of ways that helped alienate US troops from the people in Vietnam.

In Soviet Afganistan Mujahideen were seen more like the resistance movement representing the people which offered better alternative to communism which was seen by most as too foreign, atheistic and materialist. The communist puppet regime was mostly alienating to ordinary Afgans. Not to mention US support to Mujahideen which must have appeared to people as promising since they could say there is another super power backing them up in their struggle.

American Iraqi operation resembles superficially the Soviet Afgan invasion, an attack to independent country without the support of international community with rather questionable motives. But in the end the oppressive nature of Saddam's goverment has, I assume, been seen by Iraqis as worse alternative than having Americans occupiers in their soil. That's why the resistance crumbled quicikly as nobody wanted to die in front lines for the dictator. Still after continous attacks by some fanatics, hard-liners or Saddam supporters during these months I still believe Iraqis support the occupation lacking anything better to keep the order.

'Resistance' attackers are not seen as freedom fighters since they lack credible alternative, most Iraqis are too moderate to support Islamic radicals or too fearful of Saddam returning with a vengeance. They don't have powerful moral or material supporters outside the country, only maybe Al-Quaida and similiar organisations which despite their spectacular attacks are not in postions to give decisive aid. Despite the attacks I believe confidence is slowly building and last ties with the past regime are being torn in the minds of ordinary Iraqi people. After some time they're probably confident that they will not let Al-Quaida to use their soil for war against Americans.

[Gollum1 0]

Cnn.com:

Quote[/b] ]Bomb explodes near Turkish Embassy in Baghdad. Witnesses report casualties. Details soon.

[joltan 0]

Oh, it's already getting worse there... what with local warlords playing their own games against the central governement, increasing Taliban activity and bombings and murders all around... I'd rather have the US eat that bitter pill themselves, but no - our governement has just decided to send a further 400 German soldiers to Kunduz...

Afghanistan only became an international operation so the US didn't have to pay the bill themselves and so they could chicken out of their responsibility of providing security to the locals after tumbling their governement. Of course they are still hunting Osama, and every few week we can see some news that there's still some fighting going on, but the street patrols where you have do go in among the locals (and thus bear a risk you can't dodge with laser guided bombs) are done by other nations...

It's not bad that the Taliban are gone, but any effort to stabilize the country afterwards was at best half-hearted, and fighting the next war was more important than finishing the old job first...

[Blake 0]

I'd rather have international force in Afganistan as well as Iraq once things start to cool down a bit. Other has had dictatorship for 30 years and the other 25 year of continous civil war so you really can't expect them to turn out to be calm places in a day. Power-hungry tribal warlords, criminals and fanatics won't just quit fighting once you pour masses of troops and aid there. It all takes more time and careful approach.

Of course Afganistan is now in spotlight when US is there and when skirmishes take place it is widely publicised. But about 2 years ago there was total civil war and nobody talked about it.

However annoying it is that the US/UK started the war unilaterally doesn't mean that rest of the world should wash it's hands out of the mess for good. It would backfire seriously. I don't support sending larger amounts of foreign troops to Iraq at this stage so much things not agreed upon yet. But having mixed force would perhaps increase stability in the future.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Well, the US have to make some sort of compromise sooner or later.

According to some figures from the UN, the reconstruction of Iraq may cost between 30-60 billion USD.

The EU has provided 220 million euros, with Britain and Spain willing to give another combined 500 million USD.

The result? Either the US pay literally the entire bill by themselves, or they get tired of Iraq and go away. Either way, it is not a good situation to be in and they will have to compromise if they don't want to go broke.

[ralphwiggum 6]

uh huh....

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/2555075/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]

SEATTLE -- The Pentagon is chastising an Army battalion that sent out letters that were portrayed as being from soldiers.

In the past month, newspapers across the country have received letters signed by U.S. soldiers with overwhelmingly positive descriptions of their work in Iraq.

It turns out they were form letters written by the command staff of an Army battalion in Kirkuk, then signed by the soldiers.

The Pentagon said the letters should not have been sent and the battalion has been told not to do it again.

Gannett News Service discovered the form letters.

The Olympian, a Gannett newspaper in Washington state, had a hunch something wasn't right when it received two identical letters -- except for the signature.

The Olympian didn't publish the letters, but Gannett discovered that 11 newspapers nationwide did.

The letters come at a time when the Bush administration has been criticized for the way it's been handling the war.

The commander of the Army battalion said that the form letters were his idea. He said nobody higher up had anything to do with them.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/15/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]U.S troops battle at Iraqi-Syrian border

U.S. circulates amended resolution on Iraq at U.N.

[Blake 0]

I just wonder how many this kind of infiltrator teams get throught the surveillance. Iraq and Syria have very long border...

[Pukko 0]

Hello, just popping in to post an arcticle. Dont know if you have discussed this lately, but here it is:

Putin: Why Not Price Oil in Euros?

Quote[/b] ]President Vladimir Putin said Thursday Russia could switch its trade in oil from dollars to euros, a move that could have far-reaching repercussions for the global balance of power -- potentially hurting the U.S. dollar and economy and providing a massive boost to the euro zone.

"We do not rule out that it is possible. That would be interesting for our European partners," Putin said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in the Urals town of Yekaterinburg, where the two leaders conducted two-day talks.

"But this does not depend solely on us. We do not want to hurt prices on the market," he said.

"Putin's putting a big card on the table," said Youssef Ibrahim, managing director of the Strategic Energy Investment Group in Dubai and a member of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, an influential body of leading world thinkers thought to help set the United States' foreign policy agenda.

"In the context of what is happening worldwide, this statement is very important," he said.

Putin's words come in the wake of a protracted drive by the EU to attract more countries' trade and currency reserves into euros, in a bid to chip away at U.S. hegemony over the global economy and money supply.

A move by Russia, as the world's second largest oil exporter, to trade oil in euros, could provoke a chain reaction among other oil producers currently mulling a switch and would further boost the euro's gradually growing share of global currency reserves.

That would be a huge boon to the euro zone economy and potentially catastrophic for the United States. Dollar-based global oil trade now gives the United States carte blanche to print dollars without sparking inflation -- to fund huge expenses on wars, military build-ups, and consumer spending, as well as cut taxes and run up huge trade deficits.

Almost two-thirds of the world's currency reserves are kept in dollars, since oil importers pay in dollars and oil exporters keep their reserves in the currency they are paid in. This effectively provides the U.S. economy with an interest-free loan, as these dollars can be invested back into the U.S. economy with zero currency risk.

If a Russian move to the euro were to prompt other oil producers to do the same, it could be a "catastrophe" for the United States, Ibrahim said. "There are already a number of countries within OPEC that would prefer to trade in euros."

Iran, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, has also openly mulled a move into euros. And after the war in Iraq, there is growing debate in the United States' traditional ally Saudi Arabia on a switch too, though its government has not come down firmly on one side, Ibrahim said. "There is a revision going on of its strategic relationship with the United States. Already, they're buying more [French-made] Airbuses," he said. "The Saudi Crown Prince [Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud]'s visit to Russia was of great significance and the regime is talking about closer cooperation with LUKoil and other Russian companies."

Under Saddam Hussein, Iraqi oil was traded in euros. "This was another reason [why the U.S. attacked]," Ibrahim said. "There is a great political dimension to this. Slowly more power and muscle is moving from the United States to the EU, and that's mainly because of what happened in Iraq," he said.

and a follow up:

Khristenko: Euro Switch Is Inevitable

I remember a few posts here before teh war about oil being traded in euro as a major reason for the war against Iraq. Now this is not what TBA planned for, or is it just that?

[bn880 5]

i am a little surprized but: US gets Iraq resolution passed at UN

Quote[/b] ]The announcement by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at a European Union summit in Brussels marked a dramatic shift by the three countries.

"We agreed that the resolution is really an important step in the right direction," Schroeder said after the conference call with presidents Jacques Chirac of France and Vladimir Putin of Russia. "Many things have been included from what we proposed. This led us ... to jointly agree to the resolution.''

Quote[/b] ]France, Russia and Germany changed the agenda to the quick restoration of Iraq's sovereignty, forcing the United States to make clear it has no intention of remaining an occupying power. The resolution states that "the day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly.''

[denoir 0]

Hello, just popping in to post an arcticle. Dont know if you have discussed this lately, but here it is:

Putin: Why Not Price Oil in Euros?

and a follow up:

...

Khristenko: Euro Switch Is Inevitable

Uh, that's nasty! The oil price connection is the major thing that stabilizes the dollar. It's a brilliant economical arrangement - by tying the currency to a limited natural resource you guarantee a very stable value. So this is a very serious blow. Should this switch set a precedent for the rest of the world, it would be an unprecedented disaster for the US economy.

Quote[/b] ] am a little surprized but: US gets Iraq resolution passed at UN

I'm a bit split on that. First of all it does not change anything apart from that some countries sort of make up with USA. But that's also on very shaky grounds. While the EU formally supports the resolution, they have made it very clear that they won't be helping out in any way. No troops will be sent and very little money will be given. The EU has promised a total of 200 million euros reconstruction aid. The overall cost shouldered by the US is however over 80 billion euros. So the EU contribution is just peanuts.

All that is fair and well, but I'm a bit sceptical about the UN giving political legitmity to the occupation. While the resolution doesn't really state that it's still prety much that. The US started a war of aggression and in violation of the UN charter, so I don't think the UN should deal with them at all in the Iraq question. Help should be given to the new Iraqi government directly and not through coallition middle hands.

[bn880 5]

I see your points. I think however it is probably slightly better for the Iraqis in the long run, as to what is in that agreement from the quote above. It does not in any way legitimize the invasion of Iraq, but attempts to establish "a roadmap to ending the occupation".

I am certain everyone agreed to this as it was better than worse, at least at their inspection.

[Badgerboy 0]

Another 3 US soldiers killed

[Blake 0]

Potentially harmless situation which escalated. Gunmen refused to obey nightime curfew and shooting broke out. Not suprising though in a country full of guns and lawlesness.

[denoir 0]

The Secret Collaborators (TIME)

Very interesting article about how the CIA infiltrated Saddam's intelligence services.

Two things I noted:

1) For how little the collaborators betrayed their country. And this was not just betraying Saddam - they gave positions of Iraqi troops that got slaughtered. The worst kind of treason.

2) What about the WMD? If they really had informants that high up then surely they would have known that there were no WMD?

[Acecombat 0]

The Secret Collaborators (TIME)

2) What about the WMD? If they really had informants that high up then surely they would have known that there were no WMD?

Shhh someone might hear you denoir ... what will they think that the US lied? God forbid such a thing as CIA lying....

[EiZei 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27061-2003Oct14.html

Quote[/b] ]

In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three.

The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three.

Dont think fox news is being bashed for nothing.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think the self censorship in US media on foriegn policy issues would put the KGB to shame but most countries media is the same.

The one thing the US has got is a diverse media with some good honest reporting on the fringes but it is noticable that the general US populace is not very well informed. Their geography skills leave a lot to be desired.

It is the US mass media which is largely to blame for this ignorance. We have the same effect in the UK with Sun newspaper a lamentable rag its content is made even less excusable by the fact that its writers are well educated but use their skills to deliberatley blinker their readers view of the world.

With more people using the net I hope this world wide ignorance will reduce but I fear that too many people accept the preprocessed rubish rather than looking in to things.

Witness some of the ill informed views expressed by people on this forum about DU; they just quoted their governments line rather than investigating it. I think there are still people out there who think DU is not radioactive or that touching it is the same as breathing it in duh!

Kind Regards Walker

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]The one thing the US has got is a diverse media with some good honest reporting on the fringes but it is noticable that the general US populace is not very well informed. Their geography skills leave a lot to be desired

So is this an excuse to attack anyone?

Sorry my geo skills are pathetic i am gonna attack Iraq because it looks a lot like Afghanistn and prolly Bin Laden is there ...Chargee!!

Quote[/b] ]It is the US mass media which is largely to blame for this ignorance. We have the same effect in the UK with Sun newspaper a lamentable rag its content is made even less excusable by the fact that its writers are well educated but use their skills to deliberatley blinker their readers view of the world.

And people call Al-Jazira brainwashing shit...

[walker 0]

Hi Acecombat

As hidebound as ever the similarities between your self Avon, FSPilot and Bernadotte are realy quite remarkable the four of you should get married; with such similar attitudes to life and those around you.

Quote[/b] ]The one thing the US has got is a diverse media with some good honest reporting on the fringes but it is noticable that the general US populace is not very well informed. Their geography skills leave a lot to be desired

So is this an excuse to attack anyone?  

Sorry my geo skills are pathetic i am gonna attack Iraq because it looks a lot like Afghanistn and prolly Bin Laden is there ...Chargee!!

Er missed that one it was not a ground swell of the American public that decided to invade Iraq it was the American Administration that invaded Iraq. The fact that it means the US media conive in fooling the american people is no different than the process in any other 'Power Elite'

Quote[/b] ]It is the US mass media which is largely to blame for this ignorance. We have the same effect in the UK with Sun newspaper a lamentable rag its content is made even less excusable by the fact that its writers are well educated but use their skills to deliberatley blinker their readers view of the world.

And people call Al-Jazira brainwashing shit...

Err That would because it is Its just another power elite out to maintain its power base and the majority of its watchers are the blinkered donkey that it rides. Its sole purpose is to get sufficient sponsorship and not step on the toes of those who have power over it in order to survive. Al-Jazira is after all just another TV station no diferent than CNN, CBS, The Israel Broadcasting Authority(IBA) or the BBC.

I know of no media or even person who does not skew their reporting to their predjudices I include myself and you in that.

It is only by realising your sources have an agenda, often hidden, that you can use their material properly; with sketpticism and the sense to look at peoples sources and follow them up.

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Hi Acecombat

As hidebound as ever the similarities between your self Avon, FSPilot and Bernadotte are realy quite remarkable the four of you should get married; with such similar attitudes to life and those around you....

Walker, you know fuck all about my attitudes to life and those around me.

[Major Fubar 0]

Lets not get personal here. This issue can be debated without personal insults. Please behave, both of you.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

The political bias of a media outlet is not important in and of itself- what is important is that the consumer is aware of the slant that a given source puts on a news story. Example: I read The Economist religiously. It's one of the most outstanding news magazines in the world, in my humble opinion. Does that mean I think it's unbiased? Of course not. In many ways it's very conservative by European standards, and moderately so by America's. But The Economist's reporting, analysis, and writing are all first rate (not to mention their understated British wit), and I consider it absolutely superior to Time and Newsweek. I understand the Economist's biases, and when I see an opinion (especially one I disagree with), it only encourages me to seek further information and opinions from other viewpoints, in an effort to form my own. Of course, that requires things like 'effort', 'curiosity', and 'basic literacy skills'. I even watch Fox News now and then, when I feel the need to yell and throw things.

[ralphwiggum 6]

@ Oct. 21 2003,05:29)]I even watch Fox News now and then, when I feel the need to yell and throw things.

yup!

[theavonlady 2]

Hi Acecombat

As hidebound as ever the similarities between your self Avon, FSPilot and Bernadotte are realy quite remarkable the four of you should get married; with such similar attitudes to life and those around you....

Walker, you know **** all about my attitudes to life and those around me.

And all this time I thought you and Walker were married to each other.

And it's obvious Walker knows nothing about me. I'm fed up picking up one husband's socks off the floor, let alone 3.