Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ralphwiggum

The Iraq thread 3

Recommended Posts

They are using the "Print screen", Avon. Duh.... ;)

Anyway, more pessimistic, anti US propaganda....

"But one incident at the main Adhameya mosque made me feel sad. They made a huge collection of donations and were about to load it all on a trucks when the Amercians turned up suspecting some of the food sacks must have hidden weapons.. They ransacked the entire consignment leaving all food and medicines strewn all over the floor of the mosque. You can imagine how what appears to be a prudent security measure to the Americans leaves Iraqis, especially the ones who made donations feel. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Got any links or source of those reports?

Geraldo "I got hit my by a chair, and now shot at" Rivera (who goes to Iraq, couple of times) has stated that a couple of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are using the "Print screen", Avon. Duh.... ;)

Where's the keyboard? rock.gif

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, more pessimistic, anti US propaganda....

"But one incident at the main Adhameya mosque made me feel sad. They made a huge collection of donations and were about to load it all on a trucks when the Amercians turned up suspecting some of the food sacks must have hidden weapons.. They ransacked the entire consignment leaving all food and medicines strewn all over the floor of the mosque. You can imagine how what appears to be a prudent security measure to the Americans leaves Iraqis, especially the ones who made donations feel. "

It's not propaganda. It's what happened. Lousy. Could it have been avoided? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe some mosques are funneling weapons while others aren't. But, yes, sounds like some soldiers could use a lesson from Miss Manners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does Iraq nevertheless need to find some balance between its local use of oil and bringing in hard foreign currency at the same time? Sounds reasonable.

Absolutely, but the point is that you can't claim now that this wasn't about oil and that the Iraqis won't be ripped off. It's too early as the foundation has not been layed yet. The question is once the oil infrastructure is rebuilt what kind of oil deals the US companies will be getting.

We've already gotten a taste of the bidding process (*caugh*Halliburton*caugh*Carlyle Group*caugh*) and it did not quite taste that well. We have no reason to believe that the oil contracts that will be made in the future will be as beneficial to the Iraqis as they could have been through open and fair bidding.

Was the Iraq war about oil only? I'll give it a big NO. There reasons as I see it were more political than economical. That doesn't mean that the economical aspect of it should be discarded. Ignoring the fact that Iraq sits on the world's second largest oil reserve is being naive especially given the Bush Administration's cordial relationship to the oil industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What needs to be done?

Let the Iraqi people decide who should govern Iraq.

The leaders of the Shia and other influential factions asked the coalition to allow the Iraqi people to vote for their first government.  I believe you call that democracy.  The coalition refused.  Now the coalition accuses those factions of trying to impede democracy.  What a joke.

im pretty sure proper elections are scheduled for 2005 or 2006.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!  Internet in Iraq?  I bet the militants are having a field day using it to coordinate attack and to recruit foreign fighters.  I wonder how much security those networks have.  My guess is that these internet facilities were set up without any oversight from the coalition forces.

As for that one Marine's comparison of this war to Vietnam...there are some similarities but I think he was just dead wrong when he compares the communist threat to the threat of Islamic militants taking control of Iraq.  

The Vietnamese communists stopped at their borders for the most part aside from the invasion of Cambodia...but I think everyone was pretty happy when they forced out the Khmer Rouge.  

However if Iraq was abandonded, it would almost certainly become a HUGE recruiting ground and staging area for Al-Qaeda.

But the Catch-22 is that if American forces stay there, just the fact of THEIR PRESENCE in Iraq is enough for many Iraqis to continue to wage war against American and coalition forces in Iraq as they are also seen as the big brother and benefactor of Israel or as being controlled by Jews.  

You can laugh all you want at that, but for most Arabs in the Middle East this perception is truth to them which is why many of them hate the United States and take great joy in having an opportunity to attack US military forces.  

As long as Iraqis have babies, they will attack US forces in Iraq...ditto for militants from all over the Middle East who come to Iraq to kill Americans.   It's as simple as that.

That is why I keep stressing the importance of forming a Pan-Arab force to secure Iraq.   It would not be a perfect solution, but it would at least put Muslims nations with much to lose from insecurity in Iraq, in charge of getting Iraq in order.  That way the finger can't be pointed back at Israel or the United States for the necessary brutality that such a force would have to use to bring security to Iraq.  

Bush will never do this however as it would mean certain defeat for him in the elections.

His administration hasn't even been willing to give complete power over to the UN.  They keep saying that they're working with the UN but the fact of the matter is that the majority of UN member nations will never send troops to a peacekeeping effort there unless the US gave complete control of the political process (and oil contracts) over to the UN.  

In my opinion that is the only viable solution.  Keeping US forces there WILL NOT BRING SECURITY TO IRAQ.  Look how well that has worked for Israel in the Palistinian territories.  Of coarse for them they don't have as many choices as they have to live right next to Arabs.  But the US has many more choices on how to handle Iraq, and pursuing an Israeli-like form of occupation is a STUPID STUPID STUPID idea that will most definitely result in years of prolonged bloodshed and misery for both Americans and Iraqis before the American public would demand that our forces be withdrawn from Iraq.   It will also only increase the level of hatred towards America by Arabs and Muslims to all time highs thus increasing the probability for a massive terrorist attack.

In short, yes military force is needed to secure Iraq, but NOT AMERICAN military force.   It needs to be fellow Arabs or at least Muslims.  It still will be bloody, but it would be a FAR LESS bitter pill to swallow by Iraqis then having a foreign non-Muslim occupation force trying to pacify their country and in the process killing many of their countrymen.  

But one other reason why the US probably does not want to do that is because that may help promote stronger pan-Arab military alliances that would threaten Israel.  

Pan-Arab unity is not something that the US wants to see as that would severely undermine US influence in the region as well as the security of Israel.  

The direction I see things going is that America is headed into a prolonged bloody mess due to the stubborness of U.S. politicians to admit that they were/are wrong and the complete failure of the US Defense Department, State Deparment, and our politicians to understand the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics, religion, culture, and history.

More to the point, it's a complete refusal to see things through the eyes of Arabs in the Middle East that hate America.  There is also a complete lack of interest in trying to understand why they hate America in order to figure out how to change those attitudes.  Bombing them certainly isn't going to do it unless we're willing to openly acknowledge that we are willing to commit genocide and kill millions of Arabs.

Then after we get through with the Arabs we can take out the commies once and for all....and then whoever else is on America's shitlist.  Nice and simple when you put it in those terms and toss in nuclear weapons into the equation.  Quick and fast.... just like cooking food in a microwave.  

Instant results...Instant gratification... the American way!

(I'm being sarcastic of coarse).

But seriously folks... Avon Lady, BillyBob, ect... Please tell me what the end game with the US military continuing its current tactics. Please explain to me how they will stop the violence in Iraq.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/316860.htm

Rocket hits Swedish embassy in Iraq

No Ikea Furniture hurt in Blast biggrin_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]Posted Mon, 19 Apr 2004

A mortar round hit the Swedish embassy grounds in Baghdad on Monday, but there were no casualties, police said.

"The mortar round exploded on the (embassy) grounds, destroying a wooden shack, but causing no injuries," said police Colonel Ihsan Gahtan outside the Swedish mission in central Baghdad.

Earlier another police officer, Abdallah Jabbar Bidan, reported an explosion inside the embassy.

US troops aboard four Humvee military jeeps and Iraqi police later arrived on the scene and units of the paramilitary Iraqi Civil Defence Corps were deployed in the area.

No Swedes were working at the embassy, the Swedish foreign ministry said.

"We have no Swedish employees there now. There is one local caretaker at the embassy," foreign ministry spokesperson Henning Envall told AFP in Stockholm.

AFP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B52, he flew with nuclear bombs on those patrols that still go on today.

Hmm, I was certain that Chrome Dome and other similar aerial nuclear armed patrols had ceased operations by 1991.  rock.gif

No. They are still going on. We can't afford to cease them right now. He's only 34 or 36, don't remember, but he flew them for about 2 or 4 years.

When he told me and the rest of my Civil Air Patrol Squadron, I seriously didn't believe him either. But after I talked to him about it, he informed me that they haven't stopped, its still going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today the number of US Soldiers killed in Iraq during the month of April is 100.

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military added a dozen more troops to the war's death roster over the weekend, bringing to 701 the number of American service members killed since March of last year, 505 of them in combat.

sad_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What needs to be done?

Let the Iraqi people decide who should govern Iraq.

The leaders of the Shia and other influential factions asked the coalition to allow the Iraqi people to vote for their first government.  I believe you call that democracy.  The coalition refused.  Now the coalition accuses those factions of trying to impede democracy.  What a joke.

im pretty sure proper elections are scheduled for 2005 or 2006.

Yes, that's right. However, a good number of Iraqis believe it could be sooner - even by June. And the only reason for the delay is to give the US more time to privatise Iraq's rich resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What needs to be done?

Let the Iraqi people decide who should govern Iraq.

The leaders of the Shia and other influential factions asked the coalition to allow the Iraqi people to vote for their first government.  I believe you call that democracy.  The coalition refused.  Now the coalition accuses those factions of trying to impede democracy.  What a joke.

The joke is on people who think that the 70% Shiite population were going to treat the 25% Sunnis fairly and democratically after being through the Sunni hell regime of Saddam for decades.

Then what do you think needs to be done, if not democracy?

And where are you getting your impending Sunni/Shiite conflict info from?

Shia leaders have repeatedly stated that they don't blame the Sunnis for what the Ba'athists did.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dONT go there dude.

Quote[/b] ]Chalabi, who served on the US State Department's Future of Iraq Oil and Energy Working Group, says the Iraqi industry must be privatised to attract foreign investment following the war.

That only means that it is being privatised. DOens't mean we are controlling it. If it is controlled privately rather than by federal means, they will make more money off of it. Thus contributing ot Iraq's situtation.

~Bmgarcangel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really...you have ot dig more into reality shit dude.  All you're doing is assuming thats whats going on.  They have rebuilt the shit over there, oil wells and stuff, but its being controlled by the Iraqies.  They make the money off of it and they sell it to us or others.  

Other than that, most of the oil wells in iraq still need work and alot of things won't come online for a long time now.  We don't even have any need to privatise shit over there.  Its the worst place to do so with the insurgents and stuff.  Companies know that, and you'd know that if you thought about it for a long time.

~Bmgarcangel

P.S. STudy more

Please read my post a bit more carefully, dude.

I was citing the beliefs of a number of Iraqis, not necessarily my own.  In fact, it doesn't matter what you or I believe.  The insurgents are the ones pointing the weapons and if Haliburton is truly protecting the interests of the Iraqi people as much as you think then it is the militants who you need to convince, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but keep an eye out for who is going to own those companies. Also privatization may also mean less funds going to the Iraqi government, hence the Iraqi people will have less social services. Watch how well that goes over with the Iraqi people.

Oil is Iraq's cash cow... We tend to forget that Iraq once had one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East and the largest Middle Class.... this was under Saddam's highly centralized government...sadly he squandered that wealth in his stupid wars and quest for glory. That is where Ghadaffi of Libya is trying to make a different choice and is instead concentrating on building up his nation's wealth and well-being rather then chasing ideological/religious dreams.

Plus to be honest, despite Ghadaffi's human rights problems in Libya, he has done quite a bit of excellent diplomacy in Africa when it comes to mediating conflicts in Africa and assisting poorer African countries economically....plus he's not quite as brutal as Saddam was (although one of my Libyan professors would strongly disagree with me on that point).

Chris G.

aka-Miles teg<GD>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good News.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....talks_8

Quote[/b] ]Fallujah Leaders Seek Insurgents' Weapons

34 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Fallujah's civic leaders joined American officials Monday in calling for insurgents battling Marines here to surrender their heavy weapons in return for an end to the U.S. siege of the city, according to a U.S. spokesman.

Quote[/b] ]

"The parties agreed that coalition forces do not intend to resume offensive operations if all persons inside the city turn in the heavy weapons," Senor said. "Individual violators will be dealt with on individual basis."

The Fallujah representatives are believed to have influence with Sunni insurgents in the city, a hotbed of the anti-U.S. insurgency that has taken a record 99 American lives in combat action this month alone.

Quote[/b] ]

Senor said that as part of the deal coalition forces agreed to:

_ Allow unfettered access to the city's hospital.

_ Arrange for the removal and burial of the dead and the provision of food and medicine to isolated areas of the city.

_ Relax the curfew, which would now begin at 9 p.m. instead of 7 p.m.

_ Facilitate the passage of ambulances through checkpoints.

_ Consider "in due course" allowing civilians to enter the city, starting with 50 families a day, "commencing on Tuesday."

The two sides also agreed:

_ To call on civilians to turn in illegal weapons which Senor defined as mortars, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, sniper rifles, bomb-making materials, grenades and surface-to-air missiles.

_ On the need to restore patrols in the city by U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

_ On the need to begin investigations into the killing and mutilation of four U.S. civilian contractors.

Quote[/b] ]

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt warned, however, that if the deal fell apart, Marines were prepared to attack and take the city quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...does the insurgents agree or are they going to hate these SOB's (I dont think they are SOB's though ;) )for negotiating with the United States Military biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they can pull off such an agreement successfully, then it would be nothing short of a miracle.

I would have renewed hope for the situation in Iraq, if the Fellujah situation is resolved peacefully. But with the number of foreign fighters in the city, and what seems to be high morale amongst the Iraqi fighters, I doubt that will happen.

But there are many other factors that we don't know about such as what their ammo situation is, food situation, and what the relations are between different militant groups within the city and whether there are other secret deals being made (such as cash being given for heavy weapons).

Anyways, I hope it does work out.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good News.

I was going to post a sarcastic comment about that. What has been achieved apart from lot of people killed on both sides?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its good news that the fighting will hopefully stop in fallujah, or is that some people really want US soldiers to die and the Coalition mission in Iraq to fail rock.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its good news that the fighting will hopefully stop in fallujah, or is that some people really want US soldiers to die and the Coalition mission in Iraq to fail   rock.gif

You call going back to step one "good news" when 80 or so US soldiers have died and 600+ Iraqis? You call that "good news"? That their deaths were for nothing?

The fighting in Fallujah started when the coallition forces tried to take the town. And they failed miserably with a lot of dead people on both sides.

The only one who can call this "good news" are those that advocate death, destruction and chaos in Iraq. Almost a thousand people were killed for nothing.

Yeah, baby, it's so great news - let's do it all over again so we can rejoice once more upon such good news. Let's wait for the guerillas to kill a couple of more contractors and then rush in getting another thousnad killed. Yeah! crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so your saying it should carry on, the fighting should escalate into a full blown uprising accross the country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what I'm saying that it was a terrible execution of the assault that should have not happened in the first place. Going back to square one is not good news but a sad reflection on the pointlessness of what happened.

They didn't take the town. They didn't catch the ones that killed the four contractors. A lot of people were killed on both sides. And now we're supposed to be happy because they are back to square one (minus all the people killed)?

Of course it is good that there will be a truce, at least for a while and that people won't be getting killed on the same scale. Given the context and the pointlessness of it all it gives little reason for rejoicing.

And that all is assuming that it will work. Which I very much doubt it will as it is a deal between the Fallujah city council and US forces. The actual insurgents havn't signed anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush & Kerry attack Spain's Iraq pullout

Quote[/b] ]

US President George W Bush has rebuked Spain's new Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, for his decision to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq.

According to a White House spokesman, during a five-minute phone call Mr Bush expressed regret at the "abrupt Spanish action".

He also warned Madrid against taking further actions which would give "false comfort to terrorists". On Sunday, Mr Zapatero ordered the troops to return "as soon as possible".

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that unusually the Bush administration rebuke was backed in full by the Democratic party presidential challenger, Senator John Kerry. Our correspondent says there is a widespread feeling in the US that the Spanish government has made a serious error of judgement and allowed itself to look as if its policy was dictated by terrorism.

Bush is at least consistent. As for Kerry, even if it is hard to believe to be possible but I think he would be worse for the Iraq situation. He is still dreaming of some form of multinational UN force in Iraq. That is not realistic today and neither are his views on the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good News.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....talks_8

Quote[/b] ]Fallujah Leaders Seek Insurgents' Weapons

34 minutes ago  

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Fallujah's civic leaders joined American officials Monday in calling for insurgents battling Marines here to surrender their heavy weapons in return for an end to the U.S. siege of the city, according to a U.S. spokesman.

Quote[/b] ]

"The parties agreed that coalition forces do not intend to resume offensive operations if all persons inside the city turn in the heavy weapons," Senor said. "Individual violators will be dealt with on individual basis."

The Fallujah representatives are believed to have influence with Sunni insurgents in the city, a hotbed of the anti-U.S. insurgency that has taken a record 99 American lives in combat action this month alone.

Quote[/b] ]

Senor said that as part of the deal coalition forces agreed to:

_ Allow unfettered access to the city's hospital.

_ Arrange for the removal and burial of the dead and the provision of food and medicine to isolated areas of the city.

_ Relax the curfew, which would now begin at 9 p.m. instead of 7 p.m.

_ Facilitate the passage of ambulances through checkpoints.

_ Consider "in due course" allowing civilians to enter the city, starting with 50 families a day, "commencing on Tuesday."

The two sides also agreed:

  _ To call on civilians to turn in illegal weapons which Senor defined as mortars, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, sniper rifles, bomb-making materials, grenades and surface-to-air missiles.

_ On the need to restore patrols in the city by U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

_ On the need to begin investigations into the killing and mutilation of four U.S. civilian contractors.

Quote[/b] ]

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt warned, however, that if the deal fell apart, Marines were prepared to attack and take the city quickly.

Thank you for bringing this information to our attention, billybob2002.  smile_o.gif

Personally, I am more gladdened than saddened that US forces have lost their thirst for blood vengence.  ...At least for the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a thirst for blood vengeance. It's just a simple American attitude, that evil deeds must be punished and we are the punishers.

It's as simple as that. That is also the standard US military mentality which is that violence against our forces must be met with superior violence in order to punish and destroy those who caused the initial violence... this mentality is of coarse blind to the fact that we caused the initial violence in Iraq by our invasion that was based upon lies and half-truths.

So it's not anything like blood lust except on perhaps the individual level of some soldiers who thirst for revenge for fallen commrades. It's just a simple conservative view of good vs. evil and the belief that it's our job to go out and get the bad guys...without any understanding of exactly who the "bad guys" actually are.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×