The Iraq thread 3

[ralphwiggum 6]

some of the UN inspector that were sent from US were the problem. one of them later claimed that they were also working for CIA under disguise as UN inspector.

in retrospect, there were no cache of WMDs. guess what that means? it means the UN inspection worked.

[bn880 5]

I'll agree with that Ralph. We agree on something again. It's been a while probably.

[Pathy 0]

I agree that they worked. But i think in all honesty, with Saddam blocking the inspectors at every opportunity, the US genuinely DID think he was hiding something.

And so, if Saddam had been more co-operative he would have removed one of the major excuses to go to war (well, it was practically THE excuse.....)

[EiZei 0]

I agree that they worked. But i think in all honesty, with Saddam blocking the inspectors at every opportunity, the US genuinely DID think he was hiding something.

And so, if Saddam had been more co-operative he would have removed one of the major excuses to go to war (well, it was practically THE excuse.....)

Oh please, you actually think the administration spent billions on just some faint guesses? Theres a difference between an official excuse and a real reason.

[turms 0]

So you are accusing the UN weapons inspectors of spying for the USA?

This is a well documented fact that you can dig more info from the news archives.

[DarkLight 0]

So you are accusing the UN weapons inspectors of spying for the USA?

This is a well documented fact that you can dig more info from the news archives.

In the end, everyone's spying on everyone and almost no one has a fucking clue that it's going on...

In belgium we call that 'privacy'... especially the "not knowing that it actually is happening" part...

[theavonlady 2]

Ali, one of the Iraq The Model blog brothers almost gets arrested:

Quote[/b] ]Me? a terrorist?!

This is what happened yesterday morning when I headed towards Kut to get my salaries after months of paper work ( 7 months’ salaries!):

My father had some business in Kut so I awakened him up early in the morning and we headed towards Kut. I took my digital camera with me, as I thought I could take some nice and interesting pictures on the road.

Read the rest at the link, as it includes links to the pics he took.

[Pathy 0]

I agree that they worked. But i think in all honesty, with Saddam blocking the inspectors at every opportunity, the US genuinely DID think he was hiding something.

And so, if Saddam had been more co-operative he would have removed one of the major excuses to go to war (well, it was practically THE excuse.....)

Oh please, you actually think the administration spent billions on just some faint guesses? Theres a difference between an official excuse and a real reason.

Yeah well, the "real reason" as you called it turned out to be a faint guess, didnt it.

[billybob2002 0]

Good News? (WHAT !?)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....cid=716

Quote[/b] ]

Nine Iraqi Parties to Disband Militias

35 minutes ago  

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq (news - web sites)'s new prime minister announced an agreement Monday by nine political parties to dissolve their militias, integrating some of the estimated 102,000 fighters into the army and police and pensioning off the rest to firm up government control ahead of the transfer of sovereignty.

Quote[/b] ]

Nevertheless, the announcement by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is seen as a significant step toward extending the control of the central government that will take power at the end of the month. The agreement, if it works, would also significantly reduce the threat of civil war after the U.S.-led occupation formally ends.

Quote[/b] ]

"We want to disband the Badr Brigade and to enable its members to join the new Iraqi army and police forces and serve the new Iraq," said Dr. Haitham al-Husseini, a top official in the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which controls the 15,000-strong Badr Brigade, a Shiite group.

Quote[/b] ]

Al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army was excluded because it did not want "to work within the political system, within the political process," one coalition official said on condition of anonymity.

Quote[/b] ]

Most of the militias covered by the agreement were organized to fight Saddam. Under the program, the estimated 102,000 fighters will be treated as veterans — eligible for government benefits including pensions and job placement programs depending on their time in service.

Quote[/b] ]

Others, including the peshmerga fighters of the two main Kurdish parties — the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party — will be integrated into the police, army and border security force. Officials of both parties are members of the new government.

Participating militias will hand in their weapons to the Ministry of Interior. Those fighters who join government security services or job training programs will do so as individuals rather than as units, coalition officials said. The program will cost about $200 million, with the disbanding of the militias to be completed next year.

Quote[/b] ]

The remainder of the fighters covered by the agreement come from militias of Allawi's Iraqi National Accord, the Iraqi National Congress, the Shiite Dawa party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, Iraqi Hezbollah and the Iraqi Communist Party.

Hezbollah?

[Mister Frag 0]

From http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122106,00.html

Quote[/b] ]Four Foreign Hostages Freed in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Four foreign hostages who were abducted in Iraq have been freed by U.S. special forces south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said Tuesday.

Three Italians and a Polish contractor who were abducted on April 12 are in coalition control and are in "good health," Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez (search), the top U.S. general in Iraq, told reporters. All the hostages were at the same location and some suspects were detained at the site.

The rescue was not, however, the result of negotiations, Sanchez stressed. There was no reported exchange of gunfire, he said.

Earlier, Polish and Italian officials confirmed the freeing of the hostages.

"This is a happy conclusion," Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi (search) told state TV. He said the hostages were being transported aboard a coalition helicopter and would be flown back to Italy on Wednesday.

He praised coalition forces and thanked them for their help.

"Also, a thought, we should remember the fourth hostage, (Fabrizio) Quattrocchi who was killed in captivity," Berlusconi said.

The Italian hostages, who were in Iraq as private security guards, were abducted in April. A fourth Italian abducted with them, Fabrizio Quattrocchi (search), was slain shortly after the kidnapping and his body later returned to Italy. A tape of the killing was released.

The Pole is a construction company official was abducted last week after seven men stormed the Baghdad office of the Jedynka construction company. Another Polish employee abducted at the same time managed to escape.

"The operation was born from close cooperation between Italians and coalition forces with detailed intelligence work" by the Italians, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said.

Antonella Agliana, a sister of one of the hostages, told the Italian news agency ANSA: "The Foreign Ministry just called me and told me: 'They're free, they're well and in safe hands.'"

Also Tuesday, a Turkish hostage was freed in Iraq but another Turk abducted with him remained in captivity, the Turkish Embassy in Baghdad said, Reuters reported.

The embassy initially said both Tarkan Arikoglu and Adnan Azizoglu had been freed, but later said only the latter had been released after a day in captivity.

Earlier, Iraqi resistance forces displayed seven Turks said to have been kidnapped because they worked for Americans. The forces also threatened companies cooperating with the U.S. with more attacks.

Videotape obtained by Associated Press Television News showed three of the hostages surrounded by armed men wearing masks. Four other hostages were shown to reporters separately.

The tape showed three men crouching on the floor, holding passports opened to the photo page.

Six masked men were standing behind the hostages. One was holding a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and two were holding assault rifles. The hostages were sitting against the backdrop of the old Iraqi flag, held by some of the kidnappers.

One of the masked men on the video urges Turkish citizens to stand by their "Iraqi Muslim brothers" by refusing to work with the U.S.-led coalition.

A videotape of the three Italians who were kidnapped in April was broadcast on the Al-Jazeera satellite network on June 3. With the footage came a written message from the captors that urged Italians to demonstrate against the policies of President Bush and Berlusconi's government.

An Iraqi armed group calling itself the Green Brigade had said it was behind the abductions.

The abductions were part of a wave of kidnappings of foreigners sparked by intense violence that began in April. As many as 40 people from several nations were abducted, though most were later freed.

Americans still held hostage include truck drivers William Bradley, 50, of Chesterfield, N.H., and Timothy Bell of Mobile, Ala. They were taken captive April 9 when their fuel convoy was attacked outside Baghdad. Both work for the Halliburton subsidiary KBR.

A military man taking part in the convoy, Pfc. Keith M. Maupin of Batavia, Ohio, also remains missing.

Four KBR employees were killed in the attack, and another U.S. soldier in the convoy was found dead later. A seventh KBR employee, Thomas Hamill of Mississippi, escaped from his captors May 2.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]A Return to Sanity, Finally

Over the past few weeks we have seen a number of despondent editorials by former supporters of the war. These are good omens.

By Fareed Zakaria

In his prime-time speech last week, George W. Bush HIT all his familiar themes—we must show resolve, stay the course, finish the job, etc. But this masks a very different reality. Over the past three weeks the Bush administration has reversed itself on virtually every major aspect of its Iraq policy. Thank goodness. These shifts might be too late to have a major effect, but they will certainly help. The administration has finally begun to adhere to Rule No. 1 when you're in a hole: stop digging. But it needs to go further and move decisively in a new direction. Consider the magnitude of recent policy reversals:

The administration had stubbornly insisted that no more troops were needed in Iraq. But today, there are 20,000 additional soldiers in the country.

From the start it refused to give the U.N. any political role in Iraq. Now the U.N. is an indispensable partner, both in the June 30 transition and in preparing for elections.

Radical "de-Baathification," the pet project of the Pentagon and Ahmad Chalabi, has been overturned. The Army that was disbanded is being slowly re-created.

Heavy-handed military tactics have given way to a more careful political-military strategy in Fallujah, Karbala and Najaf that emphasizes a role for local leaders.

Imagine what Iraq might have looked like if these policies had been put in place 14 months ago.

Iraq policy has been wrested from the Pentagon and is now being directed by Robert Blackwill, a diplomat on the National Security Council. Blackwill is a smart, aggressive, effective problem-solver who has little time for ideology or ideologues. Since he had no previous history or baggage on Iraq, he has been able to focus on getting it right rather than proving that his original theories were right.

But old mistakes still infect Iraq policy. Many of the problems that have plagued Iraq have been the result of the machinations surrounding Iraq's Governing Council, which commands almost no respect among the Iraqi people. That was why Washington realized last November that it needed a new set of players. The United Nations was invited to pick this new "interim government" so that it was not seen as a U.S. puppet. So who ended up announcing the new interim prime minister last Friday? The Governing Council. And who's in the interim government? Council member Ayad Allawi as prime minister, and (in all likelihood) Council members Adnan Pachachi as president, and Ibrahim Jafari and Jalal Talabani as vice presidents. Two of the four are exiles whom the United States has supported. Most of them are intelligent, decent and politically astute. Allawi waged an impressive campaign, garnering support from several quarters. But to get backing from the Governing Council is one thing; getting it from the Iraqi people is another.

What's done is done. The two keys going forward are (1) to give this government internal credibility and (2) to internationalize dramatically the external assistance to Iraq. First, it's crucial that the rest of the group not be retreads from the Governing Council. Then, the new government will need the endorsement of various leaders within Iraq, most importantly the senior clerics in Najaf. The U.N.'s representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, has been in constant touch with Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The latter should be given whatever concessions are necessary so that he will recognize this government.

The new government will need to establish its credibility, which means its power vis-a-vis the United States. Washington is currently engaged in a foolish debate over whether the new government should have authority over American troops in Iraq. Without giving it formal military authority, there has to be some way to make clear that it will have authority to approve or reject offensive military operations. It will likely have that veto anyway. American soldiers will not be able to launch a Fallujah-like attack in the future if the sovereign government of Iraq condemns it. That's political reality. Why not give it in theory what it will have in fact?

The other source of legitimacy the government will need is international. There will almost certainly be a U.N. resolution on Iraq in the next few weeks. But what is needed is a strong resolution, endorsing the new government and inviting countries to help it in all possible ways. So far, Washington has been unable to get much by way of troop commitments. It has asked 12 countries for help, and only two have responded positively. Countries will be more likely to help if the United Nations is given greater control and authority going forward.

Over the past few weeks we have seen a number of despondent editorials by former supporters of the war. They despair that Ahmad Chalabi will not be handed the keys to the country, that we are not crushing the insurgency with massive force, that we are sharing power with the United Nations, that Brahimi has been given so much power. This is a good omen. It means the grown-ups have taken control. It might not solve the many problems in Iraq. But it does mark the return of sanity to America's Iraq policy.

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/articles.html

[billybob2002 0]

A leap foward.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....8181030

Quote[/b] ]

U.N. Predicts Unanimous Resolution Vote

1 hour, 6 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council was expected to give a resounding 15-0 endorsement Tuesday to a U.S. resolution granting Iraq (news - web sites)'s new government sovereignty 14 months after the fall of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). President Bush (news - web sites) predicted the measure would instill democracy and be a "catalyst for change" in the Middle East.

Quote[/b] ]

France and Germany dropped their objections to the resolution after a last-minute compromise that gives Iraqi leaders a say on "sensitive offensive operations" by the multinational force — such as the controversial siege of Fallujah. But the proposal stops short of granting the Iraqis a veto over major U.S.-led military operations.

Quote[/b] ]

Nevertheless, the adoption of the resolution will likely buy time for the new Iraqi government, boosting its international stature as it struggles to win acceptance and cope with a security crisis at home.

Quote[/b] ]

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said many French ideas were incorporated in the final text though Paris would have liked a clearer definition of the relationship between the new Iraqi government and the U.S.-led force.

Quote[/b] ]

"I hope that all council members will stand united," said China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya. "This resolution will send several political messages, number one that the military occupation will come to an end. Secondly it will say that the Iraqi people will be granted full sovereignty. So I hope that this is a very good beginning for the Iraqis."

Quote[/b] ]

Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) said Monday that "there is every reason to believe that this work can produce a positive result," according to Russia's Interfax news agency. The final draft included one of Moscow's key demands — support for an international meeting to back Iraq's political transition and reconstruction.

Quote[/b] ]

Many council members said from the start that they favored a unanimous vote to send a united message to the Iraqi people that the international community supports the transfer of full sovereignty and wants Iraq's new leaders to work in partnership with the multinational force.

In

[billybob2002 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=15&u=/ap/20040608/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_oil_5

Quote[/b] ]

Iraq Government in Control of Oil Sector

Tue Jun 8, 2:10 PM ET  

By KATARINA KRATOVAC, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi officials declared Tuesday that the interim government has assumed full control of the country's oil industry ahead of the June 30 handover of sovereignty from the U.S.-led occupation administration.

Quote[/b] ]

"We are totally now in control, there are no more advisers," Ghadbhan said. "We are running the show, the oil policies will be implemented 100 percent by Iraqis."

Allawi said the handover of the oil ministry before June 30 reflects "our full confidence in the oil minister. It's evidence that oil ministry has worked perfectly."

It seems the oil thingy is going out the window.... Plus, with UN vote today that was 15-0, also the empire crap...

[denoir 0]

Well, the UN resolution is basically just form, not substance. It does not do anything to solve the problem.

What is postive about Iraq now is exactly what is said in the article that Tex posted: radically changed US tactics. As I see it they are planning for a withdrawal ASAP. They've completely scaled down on military operations and are dumping more things on the Iraqis. Which is good in principle. In practice it is very questionable how long this Iraqi government can survive and how much popular support they have. If they can't handle the securty situation then a US withdrawal would be disasterous. There is an awfully big risk.

Of course they have not handed over power completely and the new Iraqi government will have very limited powers (they can't make new laws for instance). So it seems like a compromise for now. They start planning for withdrawal, but if things get nasty that they can take full control again.

We'll see. We can hope for a peaceful development, but to expect it would be naive.

[Donnervogel 0]

It seems the oil thingy is going out the window....

Heh. First I would like to say I don't think the US attacked Iraq to "steal" it's oil. But I think the prospect of more oil being sold was one reason and maybe they hope for some sort of "frendship price" ;) Well I don't know.

Back to topic. The Oil ministry and stuff might be in Iraqi hands now but it doesn't change the fact that the comitee that watches over the Iraqi development fund (that's where the money from the sold oil goes to) remains under "international" (in fact US dominated) control. So in the end nothing changed in the big picture.

[theavonlady 2]

I'm convinced an American lawyer followed this guy back to Tokyo.

Quote[/b] ]Japanese Man Sues Over Iraq Kidnapping

1 hour, 56 minutes ago

By NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON, Associated Press Writer

TOKYO - A Japanese activist who was briefly held captive in Iraq has sued his own government, saying its decision to send troops to the region angered his kidnappers and was to blame for his ordeal.

Nobutaka Watanabe, 35, is seeking the equivalent of $46,000 for mental and physical hardship he suffered during his four days as a hostage, his lawyer Masatoshi Uchida told The Associated Press Wednesday.

"Mr. Watanabe believes his kidnapping was the result of Japan's military presence," said Uchida. "His captors told him that he had been taken because he was from a country that had sent troops to Iraq."

Watanabe, who filed the suit Tuesday, had earlier written dispatches for his activist group from the southern city of Samawah, protesting Japan's deployment of some 550 troops there on a humanitarian mission to rebuild infrastructure.

He was taken hostage along with freelance journalist Jumpei Yasuda while traveling near the besieged city of Fallujah on April 14.

The dispatch is Japan's first to a combat zone since World War II. Echoing many critics here, Watanabe claims that the decision to send troops was illegal because it violates Japan's pacifist constitution.

"Mr. Watanabe said he knows from firsthand experience that Samawah is far from being a non-combat zone," as the government claims, said Uchida.

The dispatch was fiercely debated at home, and similar lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of the troop dispatch have been filed at courts across the nation. Kyodo News agency said Watanabe's was the 56th at Tokyo District Court alone.

The government is eager to avoid any trouble that could increase opposition to the mission, but public skepticism has grown as violence has surged, in some cases involving Japanese.

On Wednesday, family members of two Japanese journalists killed in an ambush near Baghdad returned home with the victims' remains.

Shinsuke Hashida — one of Japan's top freelance combat photographers — and his nephew, Kotaro Ogawa, were killed May 27 after unidentified assailants opened fire on their car and it blew up.

Earlier, three other Japanese civilians were also taken hostage, and their kidnappers had threatened to burn them alive unless Japan withdrew its troops.

The government refused and all were released unharmed, but officials were angered by families of the hostages pressuring Tokyo to give in to the kidnappers' demands.

Officials publicly reproached the hostages for ignoring government warnings to stay out of Iraq. All were billed by the government for part of the costs of their travel home.

Watanabe is asking the court to rule that he has no obligation to pay the $193 he has been charged, Uchida said.

[ozanzac 0]

I'm convinced an American lawyer followed this guy back to Tokyo.

I'd agree with that. Seems out of character for someone from Japan.

[Akira 0]

I'm convinced an American lawyer followed this guy back to Tokyo.

I'd agree with that. Seems out of character for someone from Japan.

Maybe the Japanese hostages got tired of being blamed themselves...

[Mister Frag 0]

When those Japanese hostages returned to their homeland, they did not receive a warm welcome. The vast majority of the population blamed them for being in a place they shouldn't have been in the first place (remember, they were journalists) and getting caught, and for bringing dishonor to the country.

One of the former hostages said that being back in Japan was more stressful and depressing than being held captive.

[denoir 0]

The very obvious:

Chirac snubs Bush's Nato request [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

French President Jacques Chirac has poured cold water on US calls to expand Nato's role in Iraq.

President George W Bush said earlier that the Nato alliance should become more involved in Iraq after the 30 June handover of sovereignty. But Mr Chirac said he did not believe it was Nato's mission to intervene, or that the move would be well understood.

Mr Bush's call came after Tuesday's unanimous UN Security Council vote for a UK and US-backed resolution. He said that while many Nato members were part of the US-led coalition in Iraq he felt the alliance's role could be expanded.

Nato currently has no formal role in the occupation of Iraq.

'Overstretched'

Mr Bush made the statement at the G8 summit in the US state of Georgia, where he is meeting, among others, the French and German leaders.

"We believe Nato ought to be involved," Mr Bush said after a breakfast meeting with Mr Blair outside the G8 summit venue.

"We will work with our Nato friends to at least continue the role that now exists and hopefully expand it somewhat," he said.  But the French president said Nato operations were only possible if explicity requested by the new Iraqi government.

"I see myself with strong reservations on this initiative," Mr Chirac said.

The BBC News Online world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds says that although France has never been expected to play any military role in Iraq, President Chirac's comments again show the underlying divisions over the role of foreign troops there. President Bush's message might have been meant for more sympathetic Nato countries, he says, though a number are already in Iraq. What the US and UK want is a country or countries to provide troops to protect UN personnel in Iraq.

But a senior British official said this week that "no significant steps" would be taken towards increasing Nato's role. France and Germany are key members of Nato, and as recently as April, turned down a request for a greater Nato role in Iraq on the grounds that the alliance was already overstretched in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

Earlier Mr Bush called the passing of the UN resolution a "great victory" for Iraq, while UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said rebels there now faced a "united world".

The plan formalises ties between Iraq's future government and foreign forces. It was adopted after many revisions by the 15-member Security Council, where opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq has been strong.

Resolution 1546 sets out the powers and constraints for the new interim Iraqi government, due to take power from the US administration on 30 June.

I guess you can't blame Bush for trying but there in no way in hell France or Germany (the important part of NATO) would send troops to Iraq.

[MLF 0]

bleh when did france do anything for NATO anyway, IIRC they left NATO, or was it that they said they would not commit troops, so they then went off on there own Nuclear agenda, but later came back into the fold.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The French and other NATO and UN governments made it clear they thought we were incorrect in our assesment of the threat of Iraq. They made their beliefs clear by refusing to support the ammendments we tried to pass in the UN before we invaded Iraq.

They got it it right we got it wrong. We have only our selves to blame.

We made the mess we have to foot the bill in money and lives to clear it up. For them to help us I guess the least they expect is an apology and an admission we got it wrong which would seem fair.

Kind Regards Walker

[EiZei 0]

Thought NATO was supposed to be only a defencive pact?

Oh well, another good reason not to join (at least officially).

[denoir 0]

bleh when did france do anything for NATO anyway,

Afghanistan? Kosovo? Bosnia? Previous Gulf War?

When Bush is talking about "NATO", he is talking about France and Germany as they are the only NATO countries (apart from UK which is already in) that can provide forces of considerable size. And France is considerably more militarily important than Germany.  

Quote[/b] ]IIRC they left NATO, or was it that they said they would not commit troops, so they then went off on there own Nuclear agenda, but later came back into the fold.

France is a full member but its troops are not under the joint NATO military command.

[walker 0]

Thought NATO was supposed to be only a defencive pact?

Oh well, another good reason not to join (at least officially).

Hi EiZei

Yes that what it is; a defensive pact.

In other words someone has to attack a member of the pact.

Iraq did not attack any member of the pact. It was not even a threat to any member of the pact.

For us to claim support under that defensive pact is clearly wrong and I am glad you brought it to our attention.

Kind Regards Walker