|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted September 08, 2004 01:10 PM |
|
|
I'm guessing that the terrorists know it won't work to the full demands, however it does have a secondary effect. A number of hostages they have taken recently work for various firms in Iraq from countries not involved in the conflict directly (ie large numbers of troops) and the hostage-takers have demanded that said company pulls out of Iraq or ceases to do business with the US army for example. It's a much more indirect form of pressure on the coallition.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
sirzapdos
Promising
Famous Hero
Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
|
|
posted September 08, 2004 07:09 PM |
|
|
I saw something on CNN the other day, about how Coalition forces in Pakistan or wherever say they're closer than ever to capturing Bin Laden.
Wouldn't it be grand for the Republicans to capture Osama right before the election? Snicker.
Don't get me wrong, that bastard deserves a one way ticket to hell, but using him as a tactic for re-elecition doesn't sit well with me.
____________
So I try to live a complicated world...
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 08, 2004 10:31 PM |
|
|
So if he's found between now and the election, it's automaticly a tactic for re-election?
____________
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted September 09, 2004 02:29 AM |
|
|
He's saying that us right-wingers would use it as a tactic. And he's **** right.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted September 24, 2004 12:09 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 23 Sep 2004
|
Peacemaker,
I'll answer your question here because this is the place for my response.
You asked what I would do if I were Colin Powell. My response:
If I were him I would have submitted my proposal in a large grandiose fashion to the Saudi royal family in front of all the world to see. I would deliver my approach as though I were addressing a great sovereign generous nation.
It is my belief that they should have led the coalition into Iraq. It is my belief that only through Saudi intervention, promotion of trade entrepreneurialship, and the overshadowing of an american presence can this be resolved.
The Saudi royal family are corrupt, benevolent, rich, gracious, pious, and(most importantly) politically seen as important trading partners to the entire globe. Only through the face of a fellow arab and the promotion of more trading between these two countries, can the Iraqi people ever hope to gain a successful police force that will finally allow the country to conduct elections with any real discernable results and accomplishments.
The country can't support its own police force, elections are being 'fixed'/ignored/neglected/overshadowed, and the three cultural seperations are spiralling downward into a civil war oblivion.
Why do I say oblivion and civil war? I say them together because this country is ready to go to civil war without a military! Thanks to the United States of America the Iraqi military in all its forms have been disbanded! Now who will guard the country's borders? Who will filter the growing number of "insurgents" that aren't even from Iraq? The U.S.? Check the latest death toll and you'll have your answer.
In conclusion, Powell made a choice and he didn't want to step on his boss's toes. Now our young men and women pay the ultimate price for what I think of as a complete lack of vision. He is not an elected official and yet this man has changed the way people look at his job. That is what's great about Powell. He has changed our views of what a person is capable of doing in his position. But to no avail, twas all for naught unless his replacement sees the vision that he started.
That's why I constantly talk about the importance of a man/woman's vote. If he were truly a man of principle then this would be his guide, not the wishes of the president and secretery of defense. The proof was made clear when Shinseki was retired early. A man can be a war-expert and still have his principles. A man can serve honorably and still go to bed hoping for a better world, but Powell chose not to do this...
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 24, 2004 03:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I say them together because this country is ready to go to civil war without a military! Thanks to the United States of America the Iraqi military in all its forms have been disbanded! Now who will guard the country's borders? Who will filter the growing number of "insurgents" that aren't even from Iraq?
I’m afraid that’s just incorrect, Consis. The Iraqi military has been in the process of being rebuilt ever since the elections, which you say were rigged but I just don’t agree with that. The Iraqi Army has been rebuilt with remnants of the old Iraqi Army under Saddam, however new officers have been chosen. Officers who were not extremely loyal to Saddam, for obvious reasons. Here are some specifics:
A professional Iraqi army is being created to replace Saddam’s army with a professional force for maintaining peace and stability. The New Iraqi Army’s primary responsibilities would be for border protection, securing roads and installations, and clearing mines and unexploded bombs left over from the war. Only a small number of officers would be employed in the new army, as plans called for it to be much smaller than that of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's. The US administration in Iraq envisions the new army to be purely for defense and wholly separate from the civil police force unlike during the Hussein regime.
Units are to reflect Iraq’s religious, regional, and ethnic mix, be non-political, under law-based civilian control, and a force for defense and security—not aggression and oppression.
Excluded from New Iraqi Army include:
· Former persons from regime security organizations
· Intel organizations
· Special Republican Guards
· SSO
· Ba’ath Party security and militia organizations
· Top-level Ba’ath Party members
Former military officers of the rank of Lt Col and below were being accepted into the new organization with all other males between the age of 18–40 years and not listed on excluded list allowed to sign up at recruiting centers. Recruitment Centers have been set up in Baghdad, Al Basrah, Mosul with an additional one at Irbil planned.
As of 15 February 2004, more than 3,500 personnel had been recruited; nearly 2,000 were operational and over 1,700 were in training. A groundbreaking ceremony for a new training base for the Iraqi Army took place in Kirkuk on April 29, 2004. The facility will accommodate an entire brigade of soldiers.
Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of Iraq's interim government announced organizational changes for the country's security forces, along with a plan for taking on Iraq's enemies, at a 20 June 2004 Baghdad news conference. The interim government has parceled out responsibilities for specific branches of Iraq's armed forces, Allawi said. New units include:
· infantry brigades;
· the national guard (previously the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps;
· rapid intervention forces; and
· Iraqi special forces
He said the army would focus on border defense and homeland security. "The reserve forces of the army will also assist in dealing with the domestic threats to our national security," he noted. The Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) would be renamed as the Iraqi National Guard and would come under the command of the army, which would also include the Iraqi intervention forces and special forces. "The national guard would be increased, and their training level upgraded. Six new local divisions will be established, as well as 18 brigades and 50 regiments at least. "The Iraqi special forces, which are highly trained and equipped with advanced tools," he continued, "will stalk and arrest all the terrorists and those who tamper with the security of our homeland and citizens."
See Consis, Iraq does have a military, it’s not very big yet but it’s getting there.
The Civil War issue is different. I have heard predictions of a civil war, but it has nothing to do with the U.S. The predictions I’ve heard have been about the Sunnis and the Shiites in the south, and the Sunnis and the Kurds in the north. These people don’t get along and never have really. We can all thank the British for setting the boarders over there.  It would be a war over religion not a political uprising against the U.S. There really is nothing the U.S. can do about that. The elections need to start taking place in the towns and cities as a small taste of democracy for these people. Starting with a major election, such as Prime Minister, won’t work.
I think that “lack of vision” is a little extreme. There was vision, if there wasn’t Saddam would be in power still.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted September 24, 2004 05:14 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 24 Sep 2004
|
Wolfman,
I see your point describing a lack of vision as extreme, but I must respectfully disagree with you my friend. I believe that going into Iraq was wrong and now we must make something successful out of an intially failed venture. We must pick up the pieces in the best way we know how. That is why I strongly suggest more proposals to Saudi interests. I believe only they can ensure Iraqi stability. I believe promotion of free enterprise must be brought about without the face of an american presence. We can always economically support the effort/cause from behind the leadership of a stable and familiar Arab Counsel of Emirates.(A.C.O.E.)
I believe this to be the best possible solution to the current problems we face. I see no other way to prevent civil war. I believe healthy trade relationships can bring about movements toward peaceful coexistence. I also believe the three Iraqi segments must learn that they need each other to survive as a sovereign nation. Only through a successful relationship of trading can civil war ever hope to be avoided.
Anyway tis all subject to U.S. govt. approval. And President Bush wants to be "a beacon of light for hope and democracy". I say this cannot be achieved with americans leading the way!
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted September 27, 2004 06:27 PM |
|
|
For Consis:
(please see my reply to your above post in the "Attack Sudan" thread)
For Wolf:
Quote:
I have heard predictions of a civil war, but it has nothing to do with the U.S. The predictions I’ve heard have been about the Sunnis and the Shiites in the south, and the Sunnis and the Kurds in the north. These people don’t get along and never have really… It would be a war over religion not a political uprising against the U.S. There really is nothing the U.S. can do about that.
The historically consistent, reliable problem with moving in and disrupting a multi-ethnic totalitarian regime is the high likelihood for civil uprising. Damned if you do (move in and overturn the corrupt totalitarian regime) and damned if you don’t (leave the corrupt totalitarian regime in place because it perpetuates imposed stability and peace between the factions). Since we were the primary moving force behind the invasion our military strategists clearlyshould have predicted this as a likely occurrence and planned for it.
Add to this the dynamics of Iraq’s location and demographics, the invasion and resulting destabilization turned Iraq into a magnet for terrorist insurgencies, which is in fact happening. What you have – and again – what the strategists should have seen coming a hundred miles away -- is a formula for those insurgents to stir up already existing anti-western, anti-American sentiments among the factions. This too, is in fact happening.
So it isn’t really accurate to say that this likelihood “has nothing to do with the U.S,” and that “there really is nothing the U.S. can do about that.” We should have done something about it from the beginning. We should have either not done this at all (if we couldn’t do it successfully), or we should have already set aside an enormous budget (or already secured funds from other nations) and had a quick, devastatingly effective rebuilding plan already in place. We should have anticipated that not every Iraqi would welcome our invasion with open arms and been ready with an immensely more prepared, multinational peace-keeping presence. We should have had more ground troops in there from the beginning, and had the ships loaded with the necessary materials and waiting in the Gulf ready to unload and start re-construction of infrastructure, power grids, and water supply the instant the capitol was secured..
As it is, despite its own admission that the electrical and water shortages are the primary cause of unrest and fuelling the insurgence, the Office of the Secretary is left begging Congress to shift $3.46 billion from water and sewerage, electricity portion of the $18.4 billion reconstruction fund, to spending for security and law enforcement.
If Bush would have let Powell handle this with his own strategy at the U.N. instead of propping him up in front of them like a puppet with a bunch of unsubstantiated claims designed to justify us rushing ahead, Powell could have built a really legitimate coalition, planned the invasion strategically, and pulled it off successfully without destroying the credibility of the U.S. in the eyes of the international community like Bush did.
As it is, we are left begging for more money and troops from a reluctant and somewhat insulted international community because, as Powell reportedly complained repeatedly to the entrenched alliance in his attempts to get them to slow down before the invasion, we rushed into this without being prepared, informed, supported and funded.
|
|
blakice
Hired Hero
mopboy
|
|
posted October 24, 2004 09:14 PM |
|
|
well im only 14 but i have something to say.
the americaan troops in iraq are following one presidents plan. if the Kerry is elected, he will follow a different plan. when the troops are moving around, it will be a state of confusion. the terrorists will take that operatunity to strike not only the us but perhaps russia or england.
____________
<b><em><color="5e9eb7">a wise man once said that imitation is the ultimate form of flattery. a more cynical man said screw that and invented parody</color></em></b>
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 01:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
well im only 14 but i have something to say.
the americaan troops in iraq are following one presidents plan. if the Kerry is elected, he will follow a different plan. when the troops are moving around, it will be a state of confusion. the terrorists will take that operatunity to strike not only the us but perhaps russia or england.
I do agree that Bush needs to be reelected in order to succeed in Iraq, but there won't be anymore large scale terrorist attacks. The attacks in America and Spain were surprise attacks, no terrorist group will attempt another attack with the world on such high alert. Bush's plan will work, Kerry's won't. Bush/Cheney in 2004.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
blakice
Hired Hero
mopboy
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 03:00 AM |
|
|
i agree with you to a vertain extent. the attacks do not need to be suprise attacks to suceed. there are enought terrorists out there to mount a large scale attack. well maybe not but they do need to have large scale attacks, they could be small attacks on the supplies or something.
____________
<b><em><color="5e9eb7">a wise man once said that imitation is the ultimate form of flattery. a more cynical man said screw that and invented parody</color></em></b>
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 04:34 AM |
|
|
I thought I'd post this email sent to me. It shows how bad things are in Iraq, and exposes how ill-concieved the whole
operation was, but you all can form your own opinion.
rom Baghdad
A Wall Street Journal Reporter's E-Mail to Friends
by Farnaz Fassihi
Published on Thursday, September 30, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference.
Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak, English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second.
It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began
spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.
Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad."
What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are
assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them.
Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.
A friend drove thru the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday. He said young men were openly placing improvised explosive devices into the ground. They melt a shallow hole into the asphalt, dig the explosive, cover it with dirt and put an old tire or plastic can over it to signal to the locals this is booby-trapped. He said on the main roads of Sadr City, there were a dozen landmines per every ten yards. His car snaked and swirled to avoid driving over them. Behind the walls sits an angry Iraqi ready to detonate them as soon as an American convoy gets near. This is in Shiite land, the population that was supposed to love America for liberating Iraq.
For journalists the significant turning point came with the wave of abduction and kidnappings. Only two weeks ago we felt safe around Baghdad because foreigners were being abducted on the roads and highways between towns. Then came a frantic phone call from a journalist female friend at 11 p.m. telling me two Italian women had been abducted from their homes in broad daylight. Then the two Americans, who got beheaded this week and the Brit, were abducted from their homes in a residential neighborhood. They were supplying the entire block with round the clock electricity from their generator to win friends. The abductors grabbed one of them at 6 a.m. when he came out to switch on the generator; his beheaded body was thrown back near the neighborhoods.
The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating.
I went to an emergency meeting for foreign correspondents with the military and embassy to discuss the kidnappings. We were somberly told our fate would largely depend on where we were in the kidnapping chain once it was determined we were missing. Here is how it goes: criminal gangs grab you and sell you up to Baathists in Fallujah, who will in
turn sell you to Al Qaeda. In turn, cash and weapons flow the other way from Al Qaeda to the Baathisst to the criminals. My friend Georges, the French journalist snatched on the road to Najaf, has been missing for a month with no word on release or whether he is still alive.
America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.
As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that almost all projects have come to a halt. After two years, of the $18 billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chunk has now been reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are going here.
Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq?
Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for insecurity. Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler. I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad.
Then I went to see an Iraqi scholar this week to talk to him about elections here. He has been trying to educate the public on the importance of voting. He said, "President Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy that would be an example for the Middle East. Forget about democracy, forget about being a model for the region, we have to salvage Iraq before all is lost."
One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle. The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.
I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy?
Are you joking?"
Farnaz Fassihi, a Wall Street Journal reporter sent this report as an
e-mail to friends.
____________
|
|
Vadskye91
Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
|
|
posted October 27, 2004 08:34 PM |
|
|
Here's an essay I made in the GG on why Kerry should be elected...
First of all, Bush has led us into an unneccessary war
on Iraq. This has cost us 1108 US lives
(http://icasualties.org/oif/) and between 14,000 and
16,000 Iraqi lives (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/),
not to mention the 140 troops from the rest of
the coalition. Yes, that is off by a factor of 10 or
so. Not only did Bush go into this war foolishly, he
went in practically ALONE! This isn't a coalition,
this is a leader and the followers! Kerry, by
contrast, has shown strong interest in building
alliances. He would make a much stronger America,
working with the world instead of against it.
Besides, remember why Bush said he was going into
Iraq? WMDs, biological weapons, yada yada yada?
Guess what, we found zilch.
(http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/)
We knew where more weapons were BEFORE to the war
than we do now! So much for that reasoning. Much
more likely is OIL. What is our current top priority
of protection? OIL STATIONS. Weapons stockpiles?
Nope. Possible Al Queda hideouts? Nope. OIL. Do we
need any more proof. We have more, but it's time to
focus on the economic situation. Bush tax cut, who
did it help? The RICH.
(http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm)
60% of the money from his tax cut went to the top
13.5% of people in America. Not much help for the
middle class, huh? Now let's look at his apparent
inability to stop lying. Look at these links...
http://factcheck.org/article291.html
http://factcheck.org/article286.html
http://factcheck.org/article278.html
http://factcheck.org/article264.html
http://factcheck.org/article269.html
http://factcheck.org/article268.html
Now, who lies more? Also, if you look at the site, it
is non-partisan. These are just examples of his
inability to keep his facts straight. Now, look at
the facts. Who do you want for president...?
____________
Knowledge is power...
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted October 29, 2004 07:36 PM |
|
|
The Texas Cowboy
Kick Azz! Yee Haw!
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
blakice
Hired Hero
mopboy
|
|
posted October 29, 2004 11:28 PM |
|
|
Osama has a new video. its all over the news. i havent listened to it though.
____________
<b><em><color="5e9eb7">a wise man once said that imitation is the ultimate form of flattery. a more cynical man said screw that and invented parody</color></em></b>
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 10:08 PM |
|
|
|
In essence, he says that the fate of the U.S. lies not in the hands of Bush or Kerry, but in those of the American people in how much they are willing to influence American foreign policy.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 10:18 PM |
|
|
Wow, that's new, not. 
Basically the video says, "Hey, look at me, I'm still alive!" That's all I see the video for, what he says really isn't important. It's just a taunt.
____________
|
|
sirzapdos
Promising
Famous Hero
Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 11:29 PM |
|
|
Hmmm, releasing a video less than a week before the big day. Could this be an attempt to sway the election? It's certainly less subtle than what happened in Spain, but think about it. He pops up saying, "I'm still alive! Na Na!" But, to me it sounds like, "I'm still alive, you haven't caught me yet. You're doing a terrible job."
It's almost as if he's saying that Bush can't and never will catch him. So, maybe he's trying to get people to vote against Bush. Maybe he thinks that since Kerry is a Democrat, and not a Republican, that Kerry will give up the search more easily.
Or, maybe I'm way off yet again.
____________
So I try to live a complicated world...
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 11:34 PM |
|
|
Well since Democrats are usually and historically weak on defence, that's a very real possibility.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 31, 2004 01:52 AM |
|
|
Wolf -- just a thought... I don't know what I think about this, but...
Isn't it true that most of the wars we engaged in in the twentieth century were under democratic administrations?
Seems to me that we had one very astute (and sorely missed) poster make this point in the last year....
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
