The Iraq thread 3

[MLF 0]

Who knows, maybe the people holding them would like for the Us forces to be even more indiscriminant, to get more support for resistance.

US troops dont go out to kill civilians, but when the opposition uses civilians as cover, when they use Holy Sites as Firing positions, places to store ammunition and Guns, you cannot expect in these cituations that Civilians will not die, add this to fact that its in a Built up environment and you heading for trouble, its a sad case but aslong as there are thousands of Iraqis content on distrupting the coalitions efforts to rebuild there country then it will remain an Occupation and not a peacekeeping operation.

I really cannot see why the common iraqi or these young Men who are so easily influenced to fight for sada cannot see that we are trying to Help them Rebuild there country, but your going to say but there families are killed by a stray Hellfire or a 500lb LGB, my answer to this is why are those missiles fired? because they continue to fight against coalition troops or attack those who are trying to help, they expect everything now, i really cannot see why they cannot understand that the Troops are there to Help. bleh im tired, so if my post rambles on or incoherent then forgive me.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

they are not used to freedom and tolerant soldiers. They are used to discriminative and agressive Baathist soldiers. Sorry to say this but I sincerely believe that a hard strike for a couple of days with zero tolerance is the only way to bring back law and order. Regime-change is not easy to digest. East germany is the perfect example of how difficult it is for people to get used to "freedom". This lack of orientation is simillar to a child challenging its parents "how far can I go before daddy gets realy angry". Antiauthoritative wont work. It is very savage to say this but the only times when occupations realy worked was when the occupying force was brutal as hell. Nazi occupation is a disgusting but appropriate example, former jusgoslawia has a different background. Strike now, strike hard but save upcoming generations.

Saddam wasnt only savage and sadistic. He succeeded because he was brutal and outplayed his competitors (or poisned them), he knew how to keep the country under control. The US has already made the mistake to move into iraq. Now pay the sin-price of cleaning up them mess and have blood on your hands!

[MLF 0]

Totally Agree Albert, but the Iraqi people are gonna hate em for it, but lets hope that in a couple of years time they appreciate it when they see why we sacrificed so many soldiers for them.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

MLF, I dont propose this because I think this is morally acceptable. The iraqi people will maybe hate the americans, but what counts more is fear. Some people here tend to forget how bloody history was of countries that are now democratic. Iraq so far is kindergarden in comparison. Democracy? What the hell is that supposed to mean for an iraqi, he thinks it means anarchy!

The problem is not the iraqis, the problem will be for the americans their reputation around the globe.

[MLF 0]

o im not saying its morally acceptable but the siuation that the US forces face demands a fist of Iron to quell the insurgents, but lets hope that once the fighting is over then they can use the Vevet glove approach and hopefull bring iraq back in to some sort or normal dayd to day running.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I didnt mean to say that you believe that it is morally acceptable.

The american public is not used to such a mess since decades. They will call them back because of too much american casualties and not because iraqis are dying. But a more brutal (and sorry to all of you people on the board), I mean brutal way of occupation will also ensure that less american soldiers have to die. Escalation means heavier armor, less tolerance therefore armor will outplay iraqi resistance. Less american casualties will ensure that the next administration will not be forced to call back the troops and leave a mess behind. I am a Kerry fan but I am afraid he might pull the military out of iraq.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Well i dont know, the thing about the Nazi occupation of europe is that, whilst briefly successful, it has gone down in many countries histories as one of the most despised and hated times for those who were occupied. The Nazis didnt much care about this, believing that the opinions of 'inferior' people were irrelevant, but the coaltion do not have the luxury of such thinking. If we really hope to see a government come to power that has at least a cordial relationship with the countries of the coalition (or the west as a whole) some kind of murderous authoritarian crackdown seems a little ill advised. I mean how far should we go? Targeted killings? Death squads? 'Disappearances'?

In only one or two steps we end up with an embryonic version of Saddams Iraq.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Isthatyoujohnwayne. I know that the Nazi regime was a terrible moral desaster and I am not defending them by saying "this was the only way how to enfore law and order". First and utmost they didnt execute civillians to ensure stability but because of savage beliefs and sadism.

But concerning Iraq you are taking the easy way out. I know that this isnt a pleasant way of enforcing stability on iraq, but what other solution is there? eh? I am waiting! Time is running out!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Well in the first place i think that whilst Iraq has been a powderkeg waiting to go off since the fall of Saddam this situation was not inevitable and there was and is no certainty about a massive popular uprising or massive civil war. The situation recently has been made and worse and worse by the actions of the troops in Fallujah and other places. Perhaps it is a coincidence that in the south where the British troops preferred negotiations when some al-Sadr supporters occupied the governors building (? as i recall) and in general have maintained a more low key approach there has been comparitively less violence. Perhaps it is because the south hated Saddam more and is comparatively more welcoming of foreign troops. None the less the long term discrepancy in the number of attacks and ferocity of the recent shia uprising between the north and south seems striking. In truth i dont know of any simple 'this is how to fix it' solution to the current problems in Iraq, the situation is bound to be dangerous for some time to come no matter what is done by the coalition (including everything from a total withdrawal to massive bloody crackdown). Im not sure any such simple solution exists.

We must either (a) accept a certain level of ongoing combat between the coalition and Iraqi insurgents and hope the fighting dies down, (b) withdraw as much as necessary from built up areas and open negotiations with all applicable parties, © pull out totally from Iraq, (d) take the battle to those creating the uprising which means pacifying the cities street by street requiring either a big increase in manpower or a relaxing of the rules of engagement and an increase in brutality, or (e) some nationwide combination of the above .

I think for one thing increasing involvement of the UN and other international organisations as soon as possible is a most desirable objective and may go some way to calming the situation but TBA dont seem to be in any rush on that front.

One things for sure, none of the options will look too promising for Bush in the run up to an election

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Some of the options were new to me. But I doubt they will work. The problem is that there is no time to waste. A, B, C, D or whatever, there is no time to evaluate potential solutions, Actions are required.

The UN? naaaaah! At the moment Iraq war 3 has started and I doubt UN forces would be able to change much about it. 2 months ago I would have agreed!

[billybob2002 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

Quote[/b] ]

In Fallujah, U.S. Marines battled for a second day to seize a mosque that officers say insurgents used as a fire base. Marines called in tanks and warplanes to pound the Sunni gunmen. By nightfall, the American force seized the Abdel-Aziz al-Samarrai mosque for the second night in a row.

The Marines told an Associated Press reporter they had discovered homemade suicide belts in the city and had killed two men wearing such belts. Suicide tactics had not been seen before in the Sunni city.

After a six-hour battle on Wednesday, Marines called in airstrikes before they took the mosque. Sunni rebels moved back in after the Marines left overnight.

hmmm...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Perhaps there have been too many 'actions' already. We can see how actions lead to reactions and an almost inevitable spiralling of violence in Israel/palestine. Of course the situation in Iraq is different, but not so different.

I disagree on the UN. I think the sooner and more deeply they are actively involved, the sooner the foreign occupation of iraq starts to be seen as internationally legitimate, the more it becomes a non coalition matter, the sooner the Iraqis feel they are not under a simple military occupation, the quicker international aid enters the country, the sooner Iraqis start to see the benefits of the post Saddam state, the better. Yes many of those issues are more for the medium-long term. But whatever decisions are taken at this point they may have a great impact on the medium-long term future of Iraq. There could also be important short term symbolic consequences of renewed UN involvement. If Iraqis start to think they can realistically work to isolate and demoralise TBA then a full scale national uprising is much more likely, much less when the UN becomes more fully involved.

[brgnorway 0]

Perhaps there have been too many 'actions' already. We can see how actions lead to reactions and an almost inevitable spiralling of violence in Israel/palestine. Of course the situation in Iraq is different, but not so different.

I disagree on the UN. I think the sooner and more deeply they are actively involved, the sooner the foreign occupation of iraq starts to be seen as internationally legitimate, the more it becomes a non coalition matter, the sooner the Iraqis feel they are not under a simple military occupation, the quicker international aid enters the country, the sooner Iraqis start to see the benefits of the post Saddam state, the better. Yes many of those issues are more for the medium-long term. But whatever decisions are taken at this point they may have a great impact on the medium-long term future of Iraq. There could also be important short term symbolic consequences of renewed UN involvement. If Iraqis start to think they can realistically work to isolate and demoralise TBA then a full scale national uprising is much more likely, much less when the UN becomes more fully involved.

I agree with you that this perhaps is the best way forward. I only wanted to add that when/if this happens I hope a large part of the UN peacekeeping force will have a large arabic contingent. This will at least add some "credibility and legitimacy" to the operation.

[Chill 0]

Good to see the USA reaping what they have sown!

Just another Iraq Gulf War 2 Vet, surfing the web with my brand new prosthetics from the Walter Reed hospital & home for disabled Vets, while President George W. Bush is home and safe telling missing WOMD jokes at the annual television and radio correspondents dinner.

Only 35 Americans were killed by the terrorist during the 8 Clinton years Vs. 2,819 total people killed on 9-11 under the current President George W. Bush Jr. first 9 months

http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/ter...ttack2001.html

http://www.democracynow.org/article...4/03/26/1551240

[Balschoiw 0]

The UN has only very little credibility for Iraqi people.

Think of the UN embargo and you can understand that people in Iraq don´t like the UN also. A lot of people also don´t get the UN-war connection. They think that USA attacked their country with the help of UN. To bring in UN troops would not make the situation better. UN is not respected in Iraq.

The USA / UK started this war with their dubiouse reasons and now they have to make sure that their proposals have to be fulfilled. It´s their job. Not the job of the UN.

If USA / UK listened to the UN, they wouldn´t have those problems now.

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]Well they released the S-Koreans didnt they?

They released the S-Koreans because they had a doctor with them who treated a mujahedin. The people than decided that these are good people and they released them.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]2.  A few days ago you suggested that America had had Sadr's support.

I never said that America had ever had Sadr's support.

Five days ago, in the immediate aftermath of some Spanish peacekeepers shooting some Sadr supporters you said, "it looks like the Shia support is slipping."  I assumed this slipping support referred to Sadr's Shia because no other Shiite groups had responded yet.

Quote[/b] ]I'd still like to know what makes you think Sadr was originally a threat of such magnitude that the Iraqis, plus whatever non-occupational peacekeeping mission, couldn't handle him and his thugs without America's intervention.

You are fabricating statements. I never said anything to that effect. What I said was that there is a power vacuum in Iraq after Saddam and that there are a great number of factions who are looking to grab power, Sadr being one of them. I said that without an occupational force nobody could control them and that the country would descent into civil war.

I quoted exactly what you said, but you deleted it from your reply.  Then you paraphrased your original words and even added a bit about civil war.  Who's fabricating statements?

Quote[/b] ]And <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>which nation</span> do you believe the Congress and the American people would have authorised Bush to move on to next, election year notwithstanding?

You mean, had Iraq been successful, which country would be next on the list?

No, I said nothing about a list.  I was merely referring to your very own words which you have again deleted from your reply (3rd time, i think).  Why don't you just delete it from your original post if the words are that embarrassing for you?

One more time...

Denoir:  Had the occupation been a success story Bush would have gotten a mandate to move on to <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>the next country</span> and enforce the necon vision of pax Americana.

Bernadotte:  Really?  <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Where?</span>  And from whom would Bush have received such a mandate?

Denoir:  Congress for one thing. The American people another.

QUESTION:  Had the Iraqi occupation been a success story, for which country would Bush have received a mandate from Congress and the American people to move on to and enforce the neocon vision of pax Americana?

Under present circumstances I think it's an utter fantasy to believe Bush could have received Congressional backing to attack Syria, regardless of the success of the Iraqi occupation or whether or not it's an election year.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Only 35 Americans were killed by the terrorist during the 8 Clinton years Vs. 2,819 total people killed on 9-11 under the current President George W. Bush Jr. first 9 months

considering that it took more than a few years to get the plan for what we now know as 9-11, such statement is bending the truth.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Under present circumstances I think it's an utter fantasy to believe Bush could have received Congressional backing to attack Syria

Well send Powell to the UN with faked evidence again and mention terrorrism a lot of times and there you go .

Do you really think all that made up stories changed anything for the TBA ? They laugh their asses off when they see that they can tell anything to the US people and the world and face no opposition. As long as the TBA is in office the US policy has no credibility anymore.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/2988028/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]The Donald also expressed criticism of the war effort in Iraq, saying, "Iraq is a total mess, and the Army and forces are totally overextended. If you pull out now, millions of Iraqis will be killed. It is just a mess that obviously should've never been started."

He also expressed disappointment over Condoleezza Rice's testimony Thursday, saying, "I guess I'd like to see more strength in terms of this country."

of course, if he was Bush's boss, he'd say, "You are fired1"

ok that was lame.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Under present circumstances I think it's an utter fantasy to believe Bush could have received Congressional backing to attack Syria

Well send Powell to the UN with faked evidence again and mention terrorrism a lot of times and there you go .

Do you really think all that made up stories changed anything for the TBA ? They laugh their asses off when they see that they can tell anything to the US people and the world and face no opposition. As long as the TBA is in office the US policy has no credibility anymore.

If Syria had 17 UN SC resolutions against it;

If Syria had 12 years of sanctions against it;

If Syria had a history of WMD development and usage;

If Syria had started 2 bloody wars in the past 2 decades;

If one of those wars involved the US;

If Syria had not helped the US trackdown it's POWs and MIAs;

If Syria had sent agents to kill a former US president (Bush Sr.);

etc etc;

If all of this were true then the Congress would still have insisted TBA get full UN SC support before taking military action.  To suggest otherwise is just cheap America-bashing.

[Balschoiw 0]

Bernadotte sorry to say so but the USA is already on it´s way. You may want to check Rice´s latest comments on Syria.

USA have alleged Syria with terrorrists since 9/11. It´s pretty obviouse that there is some motivation behind all that embargo, isolation, putting pressure on Syria thing.

I am sure if Iraq war had run different than it does now Syria would be next on the list. No matter what.

It has nothing to do with bashing. It´s just fact.

Quote[/b] ]The hawks proposed punitive raids because Syria and the United States already were bristling at each other, and the war simply took an unfortunate series of circumstances and brought them to a point of crisis, administration sources said.

In spite of Syria's heightened cooperation in the war on terror, with Syria giving the United States much useful information about al-Qaida, it was still supporting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in the war.

In an April 13 Washington Post report, Powell issued a harsh warning to Syria against giving safe haven to Iraqi officials fleeing Baghdad. At a Pentagon press conference, Rumsfeld charged: "We are getting scraps of intelligence saying that Syria has been cooperating in facilitating the move (of senior members of Saddam Hussein's regime) from Iraq to Syria."

He warned that arms and supplies were moving into Iraq from Syria as well. Syria replied strongly that such charges were "baseless."

In an interview with The Washington Times, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was quoted as saying: "Syria is shipping killers into Iraq to kill Americans."

There was some truth to this, say serving and former U.S. intelligence officials.

Former senior CIA officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told UPI that U.S. combat forces in Iraq detained at least 700 Lebanon-based Hezbollah fighters who came in buses over the Syrian border to fight against the U.S. coalition.

In one incident, a bus filled with Lebanese Hezbollah militants stopped in Iraq included two dozen Chechen terrorists, a former senior agency official said.

He added that another 100 members of Hezbollah are being detained at a camp at Tanaa in Iraq. After stern U.S. warnings, Syria tightened up scrutiny at checkpoints, but more Hezbollah and jihadis "simply went over the border" with weapons and explosives, he said.

"We were seeing some very disturbing signs of plans for anti-U.S. activity" on the part of the Hezbollah, another administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Quote[/b] ]

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice commented on the claims from unnamed sources and Syrian dissidents on Friday.

"I want to be very clear: We don't, at this point, have any indications that I would consider credible and firm that that has taken place. But we will tie down every lead," said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

However, Rice refused to rule out the scenario raised by Paris-based Syrian dissident Nizar Nayyuf who told Britain's independent Channel Five News that a senior Syrian military intelligence source had told him about the weapons.

"There hasn't been any hard evidence that such a thing happened," Rice told reporters, but "I can't dismiss anything that we haven't had an opportunity to fully assess."

It´s no bashing. I´m just having my eyes open.

[ralphwiggum 6]

another fact is that US military resource is stretched thin as it's now. what makes you think that another war against Syria is going to happen? Iraq itself is more than what can be handled.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]Under present circumstances I think it's an utter fantasy to believe Bush could have received Congressional backing to attack Syria

Well send Powell to the UN with faked evidence again and mention terrorrism a lot of times and there you go .

Do you really think all that made up stories changed anything for the TBA ? They laugh their asses off when they see that they can tell anything to the US people and the world and face no opposition. As long as the TBA is in office the US policy has no credibility anymore.

If Syria had 17 UN SC resolutions against it;

If Syria had 12 years of sanctions against it;

If Syria had a history of WMD development and usage;

If Syria had started 2 bloody wars in the past 2 decades;

If one of those wars involved the US;

If Syria had not helped the US trackdown it's POWs and MIAs;

If Syria had sent agents to kill a former US president (Bush Sr.);

etc etc;

If all of this were true then the Congress would still have insisted TBA get full UN SC support before taking military action.  To suggest otherwise is just cheap America-bashing.

You are talking about "before 911". Now the TBA has developed the rapid reaction behaviour which is purely based on assumptions and poorly checked intel. The months of propaganda by TBA concerning the omni-present teror-threats, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as several Al Quaida attacks around the globe has turned the US society less sensitive towards WAR. From now on it could be pretty easy to justify by just repeating the following words over and over again "WMD, mad man, 911, Al Quaida", facts dont play a role!

[toadlife 3]

I am sure if Iraq war had run different than it does now Syria would be next on the list. No matter what.

It has nothing to do with bashing. It´s just fact.

No, that's your opinion. As a U.S. citizen it is my opinion that the American people would not support, nor would congress approve a Syrian invasion - regardless of the success of the Iraq campaign.

[toadlife 3]

From now on it could be pretty easy to justify by just repeating the following words over and over again "WMD, mad man, 911, Al Quaida", facts dont play a role!

How very insulting.