Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ralphwiggum

The Iraq thread 3

Recommended Posts

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.

just having fun with Freudian slip i guess. tounge_o.gif

anyways, back on topic, it's either US pays the bill, or tuck tails between legs and ask for UN's help.

and when that happens, as a sign of help, I guess we can expect Israel to support reconstruction of iraq in friendly manner? wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and when that happens, as  a sign of help, I guess we can expect Israel to support reconstruction of iraq in friendly manner? wink_o.gif

In that previous Oxford Research survey, Israel ranked #1. smile_o.gif

As the country asked to not provide any assistance whatsoever. smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's either US pays the bill, or tuck tails between legs and ask for UN's help.

As it looks now they're going to ask the UN for help but no militarily significant countries are willing to give any.

It's really a hostage situation. Either you can help with the occupation that you were firmly against or the Iraqi people will be the ones to suffer. As it looks now most European countries are counting their blessings for not getting involved in the first place and I don't really see a UN resolution changing that. And I can understand them. The situation in Iraq is no joke. Putting international troops there is not going to solve the problems overnight. Any country that sends larger number of troops can count on troops getting killed. If the government of that country opposed the war and if the people of the country opposed the war, it is difficult to convince them to go in and sacrifice their soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and when that happens, as  a sign of help, I guess we can expect Israel to support reconstruction of iraq in friendly manner? wink_o.gif

In that previous Oxford Research survey, Israel ranked #1. smile_o.gif

As the country asked to not provide any assistance whatsoever. smile_o.gif

Now's the time to confuse the enemy. Let Sharon go on a rant about the illegal occupation of Iraq and start providing massive humanitarian aid to Iraq. wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's either US pays the bill, or tuck tails between legs and ask for UN's help.

As it looks now they're going to ask the UN for help but no militarily significant countries are willing to give any.

It's really a hostage situation. Either you can help with the occupation that you were firmly against or the Iraqi people will be the ones to suffer. As it looks now most European countries are counting their blessings for not getting involved in the first place and I don't really see a UN resolution changing that. And I can understand them. The situation in Iraq is no joke. Putting international troops there is not going to solve the problems overnight. Any country that sends larger number of troops can count on troops getting killed. If the government of that country opposed the war and if the people of the country opposed the war, it is difficult to convince them to go in and sacrifice their soldiers.

my suggestion lies on assumption that 1)Bush gets booted out of office 2)Kerry acknowledges that previous administration f!@#ed up 3)TBA workers get plenty of public denouncement. then US can ask for UN's help.

before the war, Gen. Shinseki said about 400,000 troops will be needed for peacekeeping mission. on that note, currently US is in with 140,000 or so. by having UN mandate, we can add about equal number of troops if the rest of the world gives one more chance. it isn't as much as 400,000 but my guess is that it will work better thatn what we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, would be even better if Sharon asked America to remove its illegal settlements....

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.

You're just playing with words.  Dictionary.com draws little distinction between vengeance and punishment.

ven·geance n.  Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution.

I personally feel that punishment may imply some intent to rehabilitate.  However, methinks that putting several hundred of Fallujah's civilian population into the grave was not intended to rehabilitate anyone.

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...

1.  The Fallujah violence was against 4 civilians, not US military forces.

2.  Before Fallujah, US forces had done nearly nothing to punish and destroy other towns the way you describe, even where violence was inflicted on actual US forces.  So I don't really understand how you're rhetoric can be applied in this situation.

It was vengeance and not just economic vengeance; not just political vengeance.  A lot of innocent people died.  It was blood vengeance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my suggestion lies on assumption that 1)Bush gets booted out of office 2)Kerry acknowledges that previous administration f!@#ed up 3)TBA workers get plenty of public denouncement. then US can ask for UN's help.

This reminds me of 1980, when US embassy workers were being held hostage in Iran.  Most believe that it cost Jimmy Carter his re-election.  It was later revealed that Republicans may have successfully convinced the Iranian capteurs not to release any hostages until Regan had won the election.  In fact, the hostages were ultimately released on the day of Regan's inauguration.  But perhaps the greatest irony is that the same man who directed the CIA during the years that they had tortured so many Iranian insurgents ended up being Regan's vice president; George Bush Sr.

So, I suspect that the 2 greatest unspoken fears of the democratic party are that Iraq will stabilise soon and that Osama bin Laden will be captured on November 3rd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my suggestion lies on assumption that 1)Bush gets booted out of office 2)Kerry acknowledges that previous administration f!@#ed up 3)TBA workers get plenty of public denouncement. then US can ask for UN's help.

I'm not sure that Kerry is any better than Bush when it comes to Iraq. I have not been overly impressed with his very vague idea of what to do. In a sense better the devil you know... Bush is so far more or less following his doctrine consistently. It may be a very wrong doctrine, but at least it is fairly predictable. On the other hand without Powell (not that I put too much faith in him) next term to balance things out, a Cheney dominated administration.. well.. would not be an ideal development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure that Kerry is any better than Bush when it comes to Iraq. I have not been overly impressed with his very vague idea of what to do.

When campaigning in the midst of an ongoing conflict it can be wise to be vague.

Example:  Last year, Amram Mitzna lead Israel's Labour party to their worst defeat in history by not being vague enough about his peace plan.  He was foolish enough to announce that Israel would give the Palestinians 1 year to give up terrorism and come to the negotiating table.  Otherwise, he would pursue complete separation beginning with a full pullout from Gaza.  Sharon scoffed at Mitzna'a plan, easily defeated him and then pursued exactly the same course of action.

I certainly don't mind if Kerry plays his cards closer to his chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20040419/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_ambassador

Quote[/b] ]

Bush Names Negroponte As Iraq Ambassador

3 minutes ago  

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) on Monday named John Negroponte, the top U.S. diplomat at the United Nations (news - web sites), as the first American ambassador to postwar Iraq (news - web sites) and asserted that Iraq "will be free and democratic and peaceful."

Quote[/b] ]

At the United Nations, Negroponte, 64, was instrumental in winning unanimous approval of a Security Council resolution that demanded that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) comply with U.N. mandates to disarm.

confirmed by the Senate, Negroponte would head an embassy in Baghdad that will be temporarily housed in a palace that belonged to Saddam. When up and running, the embassy will be the largest in the world. Negroponte went from the White House to the State Department to discuss plans for the embassy, said his spokesman, Richard Grennell.

Negroponte's selection was widely praised.

"I respect him as a professional and he's quite an experienced diplomat," said Russia's acting U.N. ambassador, Gennady Gatilov. "So I hope that this appointment will serve the interest of the Iraqi population."

Germany's U.N. ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, the current Security Council president, said, "I think he is certainly the right person for this very difficult and also dangerous job."

Algeria's U.N. Ambassador Abdallah Baali, the only Arab member of the Security Council, said Negroponte "has a great quality, which is to listen to other people, and I think that will help him a llot in his very, very difficult mission in Iraq."

June 30 is coming closer and closer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]When campaigning in the midst of an ongoing conflict it can be wise to be vague.

Kerry keeps saying that he wants other countries to join "the table". Everbody knows he is talking about France, Germany, and Russia. When those countries come in, the rebels will be scared shitless.......

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.

You're just playing with words.  Dictionary.com draws little distinction between vengeance and punishment.

ven·geance n.  Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution.

I personally feel that punishment may imply some intent to rehabilitate.  However, methinks that putting several hundred of Fallujah's civilian population into the grave was not intended to rehabilitate anyone.

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...

1.  The Fallujah violence was against 4 civilians, not US military forces.

2.  Before Fallujah, US forces had done nearly nothing to punish and destroy other towns the way you describe, even where violence was inflicted on actual US forces.  So I don't really understand how you're rhetoric can be applied in this situation.

It was vengeance and not just economic vengeance; not just political vengeance.  A lot of innocent people died.  It was blood vengeance.

Ok I agree on the first part.   There is not much of an effort at encouraging rehabilitation.   Negative reinforcement has been proven to be very ineffective in changing people's attitudes.  Even in Army basic training and Marine Boot Camp, while they first tear recruits down until they are lower then dirt, they then build them back up into strong, confident fighting men (and women).  But that is of coarse in a captive population where that is alot easier and Iraq is definitely not a captive and isolated population.  

As for the  Fellujah violence, from what I read, that operation had been planned well before the killings of those 4 civilian contractors.  Before those killings that area has been a hotbed of militants, who would often attack convoys passing through or past Fellujah.  

Those security guards (really mercenaries) were killed because they were supporting the coalition forces even if they were supposedly protecting a food convoy.  

They were foreign, they were armed, so they were legit targets in the minds of those militants.  

At any rate the attack on Fellujah was not because of this, although one of the conditions for a cease fire ended up being that the people responsible for the killings of those mercs be handed over.  

Also I didn't mention specifically the same thing that is happening in Fellujah happening in other cities.  I don't where you got that.  US forces have however operated in VERY heavy handed ways in many areas of Baghdad inculding the Sadr City neighborhood.    There was also some very heavy handed operations in Tikrit.      

But if you want to insist that the whole thing was purely blood vengeance (whatever that means) then I guess you're psychic and you know the hearts of all the soldiers and commanders carrying out these operations.  

From actually talking to US soldiers in Iraq and having been a soldier myself, I can tell you that it's not as simplistic as the notion of "blood vengeance."  As I said, for some individual soldiers this may be the case.  For some politicians this may the case.  Even for a few commanders this may be the case, but as for the US military as a whole, it doesn't operate that way.  It takes orders from a civilian authority on large scale sensitive operations and then plans and carries out operations for strategic purposes... not for "blood vengeance".

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]When campaigning in the midst of an ongoing conflict it can be wise to be vague.

Kerry keeps saying that he wants other countries to join "the table". Everbody knows he is talking about France, Germany, and Russia. When those countries come in, the rebels will be scared shitless.......

Those countries won't come in unless they get a peace of the pie:   oil.

The would also want at least an equal say in the political process of Iraq.  This may happen after the US gives the governing council true political power, however that may be because the council has members on it that secure America's oil interests and are loyal to the US.   No European power could force out these council members without a massive amount of resentment going against them along with accusations that they are oppressing the Iraqi people's political freedoms.  

So there may be some very cunning political swordplay that is going on between the US and European powers.  

However it is a very dangerous game if this is the case as countries like France, Germany, and Russia may decided that they want nothing to do with Iraq and they'll leave us to deal with the mess.  

So what happens after the June 20th deadline will be very interesting.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]When campaigning in the midst of an ongoing conflict it can be wise to be vague.

Kerry keeps saying that he wants other countries to join "the table". Everbody knows he is talking about France, Germany, and Russia. When those countries come in, the rebels will be scared shitless.......

Well, the Russians managed to scare you shitless for 50 years so...  rock.gif

No, but it is a question of manpower. Those three countries can provide the force that you lack. And it's reasonable to try that road. So far the US performance has been less than stellar to put it mildly. Large part of it is that while the US military is a powerful conventional fighting force it lacks the experience for more fuzzy unconventional situations. The European countries on the other hand have a large experience in that field both from modern day peace keeping as well as the fact that Europe has been in the empire building business since the Roman empire.

As for the three main players:

France - it has enough trouble with its own former colonies to spend bailing out America from its attempt at neo-colonialism. There are a shitload of former French colonies in Africa that from a humanitarian point of view need at least much help as Iraq does. Given that and the French opposition to the war in the first place, it's not strange that they prefer using their resources in places like Congo instead.

Germany - the opposition to the war was huge and the politicians made promises not to send German troops. I don't know how much you can complain about that. I mean people have been upset about German militarism for a long time so they should just shut up and be happy that they are pacifists these days.

Russia - has its own agenda. Putin predicted fairly well what would happen to Iraq. He said even before the war that this was not going to be another Vietnam, but another Afghanistan (refering to the Soviet invasion and the subsequent mess). And that's basically what we're seeing. In a similar way like Americans have a Vietnam complex, Russians have an Afghanistan complex. They don't want to repeat the experience. Furthermore they made very good use of the food-for-oil program to bail out their own underproducing oil industry. Today they would have little to gain by helping out in Iraq. Bush and his neocons have as a defined agenda that America should be the only superpower in the world. Obviously Russia feels differently and a grand American failure in Iraq will probably put the neocons in place for the next 20 years or so.

So for the nein-non-njet coaliton to join the ranks of the willing, it is going to require a lot. Just giving the UN a full mandate won't cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Well, the Russians managed to scare you shitless for 50 years so...  

.......... unclesam.gif (I was implying that those rebels did not give a damn about those countries)

Quote[/b] ]So for the nein-non-njet coaliton to join the ranks of the willing, it is going to require a lot. Just giving the UN a full mandate won't cut it.

Tell that to ketchup man. I guess he wants to get his knees dirty..... wow_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the  Fellujah violence, from what I read, that operation had been planned well before the killings of those 4 civilian contractors.

I didn't know that.  In that case, I would not necessarily consider the operation an act of vengeance, retribution reprisal or collective punishment.  But the main point remains that, however you choose to describe the operation, I'm glad it's been suspended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany - the opposition to the war was huge and the politicians made promises not to send German troops. I don't know how much you can complain about that. I mean people have been upset about German militarism for a long time so they should just shut up and be happy that they are pacifists these days.

I hate you for hitting things on the spot  tounge_o.gif . I fully agree with your point of view. This is how the outside world should perceive it.

However there are some spins to the story. A: a military action under UN command could give germany some trust back. For us, it could help gaining back some patriotic identity and pride by fighting on the right "side".

On the other hand, people tend to argue. Germany always fights for the wrong side, and if they are asked to help to fight evil, they give in. Seems they rather safe their strength for the next evil war. (Bush interpretation)  tounge_o.gif

Some people say, germany is confused, so often in history they chose the wrong path and they rather do nothing than doing wrong again. Very naive but there is a certain truth to it. But this is ignoring the fact that we are already on peace-keeping missions around the globe with thousands of dedicated soldiers.

After all you are right with your assumption. But I disagree that France is too busy with keeping its former colonies demorcatic. France capabilities are far from being exhausted and sometimes I have the impression the world seems to ignore the military capabilities of the French military.

As far as Russia is concerned I must admit I am slightly uneducated about their involvement with the war in Iraq. I guess for them it is a: a question of budget / b: they have enough trouble with tchechnia already. C: they never liked to fight alongside the americans (Denoir you are better with that: didnt the russians pretty much isolate themselves during the Jugoslawian conflict?), especially they do not like to act under US command. D: Russia in most cases acts in accord with the EU rather than with the US. E: dont forget they made a bad experience with that sort of terrain!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Debka:

Quote[/b] ]Three communities name heads of new Iraqi armed forces: Gen. Baker al-Zibari, 56, Sunni Kurd, who fought Saddam for 30 years, is awarded key post of senior military adviser to Iraqi government. Gen. Amer Al-Hashemi, 58, Sunni Arab who served in Saddam’s army, was appointed chief of staff, Lt.-Gen Daham al-Assal, 63, Shiite trained in US and Britain, named his deputy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from a part of article from BBC reagrding Spanish troop withdrawal and Bush's disappointment.

Quote[/b] ]The president of Honduras has ordered his 370-strong contingent home too.

President Ricardo Maduro announced he was withdrawing his troops "in the shortest possible time".

Mr Maduro said he had consulted with "the members of the coalition and other friendly countries".

Honduran troops had been due to leave by 1 July before Monday's announcement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3640459.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ceasfire in Fallujah is all very nice but do you actually think the Resistance fighters are willing to surrender their weapons?It sounds pretty unrealistic to me,if they would want such a thing they could have done it before the siege and not engage in fights with the Marines,but from what I`ve seen they were pretty determined to put up a fight. Something tells me they won`t give up their stronghold just that easy moreover as I understand there is a force of atleast 3.000 fighters in the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Bush Names Negroponte As Iraq Ambassador

Wasn´t that the guy who was US ambassador in Honduras from 1981 to 1985. In Honduras, Negroponte played a prominent role in assisting the contras in Nicaragua in their war with the left-wing Sandinista government but was accused of acquiescing to human-rights abuses by a Honduran death squad funded and partly trained by the CIA.

Best choice ?

other news:

Quote[/b] ]• U.S. troops yesterday shot to death two employees of the U.S.-funded television station Al-Iraqiya in the central city of Samara, the station said. It said, "American forces opened fire on them while they were performing their duty." The U.S. military had no comment.

• According to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken over the weekend, one-third of Americans interviewed say the United States should send more troops to Iraq, one-quarter say present troop levels should be maintained and 20 percent favor withdrawing all troops.

The attacks on convois and supply routes show first effects:

Quote[/b] ]At a sprawling desert camp in southern Iraq, U.S. soldiers sleep in trucks and Humvees because Iraqi merchants are afraid to deliver tents.

On a key road west through the Sunni Triangle, masked men with Kalashnikov assault rifles have occupied the concrete-block checkpoints the U.S. military once used.

At Baghdad's airport, goods are piling up because Iraqi truckers refuse to brave the main highway to the capital or transport the material to other U.S. bases. Of all the sudden changes in Iraq during the past three weeks, control of the roads is among the most striking. The U.S.-led coalition has been unable to hold onto all of its supply and communication lines on vital routes leading from the capital. Insurgents have blown up key bridges and rocketed fuel convoys.

Although the U.S. military says there are no serious shortages, the perilous state of Iraq's roads adds to a sense of chaos created by three weeks of Iraqi resistance that has left at least 99 U.S. service members dead, dozens of foreign civilian workers taken hostage and two allies, Spain and Honduras, announcing they will pull their troops out of the country.

The United States vows to retake the roads; meanwhile, it is flying in more material from Kuwait and altering convoy routes and times.

"In some cases, we have had to change the way we do business, but the bottom line is that critical supplies — food, water, fuel, ammunition, spare parts — are getting to the people that need them," said Army Maj. Richard Spiegel, of the 13th Corps Support Command, which is in charge of logistics in Iraq. "Example: Are some mess halls serving less variety of food? Yes, they are ... but there is still plenty of fresh food."

Still, insurgents only need to dent the supply lines to have a serious impact on the military's ability to maneuver, said Charles Heyman, a senior analyst at Jane's Consulting Group. "It looks like the opposition has gotten its act together," he said. "It is reducing the ability of the coalition to operate where ... (it wants) to."

The road to Baghdad International Airport, on the western edge of the capital, has long been the site of ambushes of U.S. convoys, but insurgents last week increased assaults on trucks and convoys and began handing out leaflets warning of more attacks.

That was enough for Qassim Kadhum, 43. Until Saturday, the trucker was still picking up goods at the airport. But after passing several burned-out cars that day, he said he understood why crates were piling up at the terminals with no one to move them. Kadhum decided he would join other Iraqis who had stopped hauling supplies from the airport. "We are worried we'll be targets," he said. "We are not only worried about our safety, but the future of our families."

Military buyers had signed contracts with local vendors to supply everything from water to portable tents. "When the security situation gets bad, they don't want to deliver, and that's what's happening now," said Army Capt. Ron Talarico, who is helping coordinate supplies.

This could get a real problem for the coaltion troops.

Share this post


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

×