Yes, the UN is less effective than it could or should be - but bringing it into Iraq really is the only option. It will share the burden and finally bring some semblance of legitimacy to the action.
As much as I wish you were right, I think otherwise. Judging from the sentiment currently running in Europe, I am pretty certaint that at least France and Germany will not share any burden. If I talk to people over here, there is a lot of anger and the last thing people are willing is our government bailing out the Bush administration financially or with whatever limited military capabillites Germany has.
Schröder was elected in a patriotic wave because a) he firmly opposed the war and b) he was attacked by Rummie and Bush. I am pretty certain that he would have liked to backtrack on his firm position, but after the relations got even worse, I doubt he still cares. Germany is still paying for the reunification and he will doubtlessly try to satisfy Bush with some nice words and some spare change (I am talking about less than a billion Euros, compared to Bushs 85bn $). And, as far as I can see, the mood in France is even worse, la grande nation is really pissed and glad to grab the chance to lead the EU in a confrontation with the US.
Not that this bothers me really - you have enough money over there, but I am thinking about the Iraqis and their uncertain future. Killing 11 policemen is exactly what the islamist propaganda has been waiting for, one just cannot excuse it as a consequence of war and a hostile environment. Invasion leads to deceit and traps leads to humiliation and killings of innocent citicens leads to more radicals and suicide bombers...
Oh yes it's really a problem. The chief of the police in Iraq is not an idiot : it's the former chief of the police of New York. If it was so simple to have more policemen, he will already have the correct number. A policeman do not born from nothing : he must have faith in his job, and recieve the proper training.
I believe the only thing holding up the additonal 32,000 police officers is the fact you have to properly train each one, as you said. 40,000 is only .16 percent of the population. I'm sure you can easily find .16 percent of the population who can be properly trained, but you still have to do background checks on each applicant and then, because they've been under a different system for the past 30 years, have to get them out of that mindset and method they've been working in. It'll take longer than a few months to do just that. Even after hiring the initial group, they weren't adhering to proper police methods a couple of months after being hired. It takes time.
Quote:
Perhaps but Iraqi have less confidence in US troops, than US troops in their own army. Psychology is more powerfull than pure logic. [/B]
True. Perhaps the Iraqis have more confidence in the US troops than they do in the Iraqi's who are commiting the crimes themselves. If that is the case, then the Iraqi's who want police jobs are going to be more worried about Iraqi's doing something harmful to them and their families than they would about Americans screwing up. Which would be the whole point in them accepting a job (i.e. wanting to help stabilize Iraq).
Given the fact that you've shown us no facts as to why this is impossible, why don't you support your case? The army has had many months to prepare for temporary occupation. They know they have check points. They're evidently not prepared.
The article I had read, which was different than the one posted, made a subtle reference to the checkpoint, which I overlooked. I agree that in this stage of the conflict the military should try and take less violent methods in stopping traffic at a checkpoint, e.g. tire slashers or concrete barricades. However, it appears from the article I read that while the vehicles were approaching the checkpoint, none actually ran it (the drove off the side of the road). If that were the case then tire slashers would've been useless. Also, the only vehicle in which Iraqi police were killed were an unmarked pickup truck with a machine gun mounted on it that apparantly came out of nowhere to help in the pursuit of the BMW.
However, it appears from the article I read that while the vehicles were approaching the checkpoint, none actually ran it (the drove off the side of the road). If that were the case then tire slashers would've been useless.
This is where we'll never know what happened. If they never even got to the checkpoint, why shoot? How can legitimate police run around in a pickup with a gun mounted on top, but no official markings?
Either way I guess I'd have to support them guarding the checkpoint, if it's important enough to have, but they need a better solution than 'shoot as they approach.'
This is where we'll never know what happened. If they never even got to the checkpoint, why shoot? How can legitimate police run around in a pickup with a gun mounted on top, but no official markings?
Either way I guess I'd have to support them guarding the checkpoint, if it's important enough to have, but they need a better solution than 'shoot as they approach.'
Why shoot? I don't know. I guess we'll have to wait for the military's official explanation. Maybe they thought the truck was after the police or something and they were trying to protect the police, however, that is only speculation and still leaves some questions.
The articles I read: one from yahoo and the other from iwon are slightly different in what is said. The yahoo article mentions nothing about there being a checkpoint and the iwon does only twice. Both articles give differing views, albeit slightly, on what happened. I guess we will never know what actually happened considering they took quotes from the same person. Hmmm!
I think they do need a better solution than just shoot as they approach. However, from reading the e-mails I got from a friend of mine about his experiences in Iraq, it seems it's easier said than done. Usually, when they think their lives are in danger, the act first, think later. It's true "fight or flight" reaction.
Seeing how our forces are the only ones that seem to be targeted, I would like us to scale down our presence immensely, whether it be by numbers or just keeping our troops inside a safe building and only go out to do pinpoint raids. Given the fact that I think the media does a poor job a painting the entire picture as to what's going on over there, it's probably not as easy as doing what I said.
Truth be known, I believe our government was ill prepared for the aftermath and now they seem to be doing things in a haphazard way. Maybe Clark will win in 2004 and straighten this mess out. LOL!
This isn't the Army's fault. I feel sorry for the troops. It's Vietnam II. They are just trying to stay the **** alive. How do they know if a civilian is a suicide bomber, or hiding gun or grenade. Who knows if there's an RPG behind each window. The problem is not just not enough Iraqi police but not having the UN there. U.N. Invited indeed. The idiots in America who support our President deserve to be pushed down a set of stairs. He cut benefits for people CURRENTLY in Iraq. I don't care if it was him or his office, it got through. And now he is telling the UN how to do its job. I personally hope this Iraq mess gets much worse and the UN fails. So then, we can have a new, STRONGER UN take its place. One that does not answer to the US. One that the US answers to.
Does anyone here plan on voting for Bush in '04? If so do you have any family in Iraq?
First of all Iraq is far from what vietnam was.
Total Vietnam deaths = 58,202
Total Iraq deaths = 289 = 185 in hostile action and 104 "nonhostile" incidents, which include accidents.
Secondly almost all of the attacks are from remaining Bath party loyalists, which make up a very small percentage of Iraqis, and terrorists who migrate into Iraq from surrounding countries for the express purpose of attempting to cause chaos to rouse the local population.
I don't necessarily agree with all of the Bush adminiatrations decisions (Clear Skies initiative which elimates the need for aging plants to install pollution controls and anyone who's ever taken ECON will tell you tax cuts alone will not stimulate the economy), but I'm also not ignorant enough to believe Bush actually has a say in most of his proposals. I also don't believe your desire to create a "STRONGER UN" which "does not answer to the US" is very well thought out. The purpose of the UN now, as it was in 1945, is to represent the views of the countries of the world to promote peace, security, and economic development.
As for the renowned WMD "scandal" it should have been obvious this wasn't the reason for going to Iraq; the decision was made after research was completed by private psycho-oppugn think tanks, who hold contracts with the DoD, reached consensus. Iraq was the most logical point to implant democracy while creating the least amount of aggravation in the middle east.
Ignorance + despair = recipe for radical conditioning
The only way to eliminate terrorism is to remove it's root causes.
Bush even went so far as to almost say it on his Sept. 11 address in Pennsylvania; where he said the US wouldn't stop until Iraq had become a free "democracy".
It becomes more increasingly obviouse everyday . . . we were had by a bunch jerks
anyway, there may be a subtle psychological positive to this recent tragedy of killing teh policemen . . . and we can see it in the Tribal call to strike . . . namely the police will not be percieved as being soley the puppets of the Americans as they had been but will be percieved as also being part of teh 'us' against 'them' by the Iraqis . . . then they will start to respect the police and order might ensue
who knows, its a long shot but we need to look at each sliver of light in this Bush-blundered darkness
If the police vehicle was not properly marked or otherwise drawing suspicion for some reason, it's almost understandable
Killing human beings in their own country which you have occupied is barbaric murder.
The worst thing is that the people who were massacred were some of the few human beings in the country willing to assist US forces in their 'attempt' to rebuild the infrastructure which they have so totally destroyed.
Quote:
The only way to eliminate terrorism is to remove it's root causes.
Absoloutely. And the best way to increase 'terrorist' activities is to reinforce the reasons they are fighting thus hardening resolve and converting new recruits to their cause. Just ask the IRA, PLO, ETA, ANC, French Resistance etc...
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 anyway, least of all the many thousands of innocent civillians who have been blown up or shot dead.
Here's a list, compiled by historian William Blum, of countries which the US bombed between the end of World War 2 and the current war in Iraq
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Vietnam 1961-73
Laos 1964-73
Guatemala 1967-69
Cambodia 1969-70
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador throughout the 1980s
Nicaragua throughout the 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991 and throughout the 1990s
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001
In how many of these instances did a stable democratic society, respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result?
Zero.
Quote:
almost all of the attacks are from remaining Bath party loyalists, which make up a very small percentage of Iraqis, and terrorists who migrate into Iraq from surrounding countries for the express purpose of attempting to cause chaos to rouse the local population.
Says who? There are dozens of groups now vying for power and there is a civillian population which has had a robust infrastructure destroyed by the invading army and which has seen innocent people killed.
To blame migrating 'terrorists' from other countries and Baath party loyalists is to regujitate the crap that the White House is feeding you without looking at the bloody obvious. The American army is almost universally hated by everyone in Iraq and the neighboring countries anyone with the mind to is liable to start taking pot-shots at the soldiers. You'd do the same if your home town was occupied by foreign invaders wouldn't you?
Says who? There are dozens of groups now vying for power and there is a civillian population which has had a robust infrastructure destroyed by the invading army and which has seen innocent people killed.
To blame migrating 'terrorists' from other countries and Baath party loyalists is to regujitate the crap that the White House is feeding you without looking at the bloody obvious. The American army is almost universally hated by everyone in Iraq and the neighboring countries anyone with the mind to is liable to start taking pot-shots at the soldiers. You'd do the same if your home town was occupied by foreign invaders wouldn't you?
I'm hardly regurgitating from White House press briefings and am certainly not trying to "blame" anyone. Here's a couple exampes:
"The Financial Times
Charles Clover June 06, 2003
This was in the UK publication of the FT.
US forces in Iraq said on Thursday they had arrested members of an Iranian-backed militia group in connection with attacks on US troops, in a development that could further strain relations between Washington and Tehran.
A military spokesman said 20 members of the Badr Corps militia had been detained on May 21 in connection with at least one rocket attack on US forces.
It is the first time the US has publicly linked the Badr Corps and its mother organisation, the Supreme Council for the Islamic revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), to anti-American violence. Nine US soldiers have been killed in Iraq in the past 10 days, in attacks that have been blamed mostly on former members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party and members of the Sunni minority.
SCIRI is based in Tehran and represents elements of the Shi'a majority, which forms 55 per cent of Iraq's population; it was part of a committee of Iraqi opposition parties endorsed by Washington before the outbreak of war.
But US officials suspect the organisation has been used to extend Iran's influence in postwar Iraq. The group is led by Mohammed Baqir al Hakim, a Shi'a cleric."
The Straits Times, owned and operated out of Singapore
SEPT 1, 2003 MON
"Nabbed foreigners practise Wahhabism from which Osama draws direction; it has little tolerance for other Sunnis, Shi'ites
NAJAF (Iraq) - Police have arrested 19 men, all linked to Al-Qaeda, in connection with Friday's car bombing of the Imam Ali shrine here.
Four men arrested shortly after the attack had given information leading to the arrests of the others, an official told reporters on Saturday.
Advertisement
Those nabbed included two Kuwaitis and six Palestinians with Jordanian passports. The remainder were Iraqis and Saudis, the official said on condition of anonymity.
The foreigners had entered Iraq from Kuwait, Syria and Jordan. They belonged to the Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam and all are connected with the Al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Wahhabism is the strict, fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam from which Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden draws spiritual direction.
Based in Saudi Arabia, its followers show little tolerance for non-Wahhabi Sunnis and Shi'ites.
US officials have yet to confirm details of the arrests.
The Najaf bombing set off a wave of criticism among Shi'ites for America's inability to provide security nearly four months after US President George W. Bush declared the Iraq war proper to be over.
Despite official denials, there have been signs for months that Muslim extremists have travelled to Iraq to take on US-led forces.
The Washington Post reported last week that a man believed to be an Al-Qaeda operative had been arrested by US troops in Iraq while in possession of 11 surface-to-air missiles.
The man acknowledged he had been training with Ansar al-Islam fighters to use the weapons against US forces.
Many of the men going to Iraq had previously fought in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Bosnia and are experts in guerilla warfare, according to ex-fighter Abdullah Bjad Al-Otaibi.
He once counted himself among the extremists and now writes about them for Saudi newspapers.
Such extremists are looking to die, he said.
'The quickest way to heaven, as far as they're concerned, is fighting infidels, in this case represented by the US forces in Iraq.'
The American authorities have not taken an active public role investigating the Najaf bombing because of Iraqi sensitivity to any US presence at the shrine, the most sacred Shi'ite site in Iraq.
Officials said more than 90 people, including leading Shi'ite cleric, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer Al-Hakim, died in the car bombing there.
At the bomb site, people chanted, beat their breasts and wept at the doors of the mosque, which was closed for three days of mourning.
They wanted vengeance for the killing of Ayatollah Al-Hakim, a cherished Shi'ite leader and opponent of Saddam Hussein.
He had only recently returned from exile in Iran.
The authorities said they had recovered only the Ayatollah's hand, watch, wedding ring and pen.
'Our leader Al-Hakim is gone. We want the blood of the killers of Al-Hakim,' a crowd of 4,000 men chanted, beating their chests. "
AlPanther, I think womblingfree was referring to your suggestion that the attacks were the results of the Ba'ath sympathisers.
Actually there are very, very few Ba'ath activists operational in Iraq now - for the simple reason that ordinary Iraqis want to kill them as much as the US do. The idea that they enjoy any support whatsoever or are respinsible for the attacks is, I'm afraid, more WhiteHouse disinfo (that's lies to you and me).
Baath activists are not necessarily Baath party members. It all has to do with perception. Alot of Iraqis who weren't explicit members of the Baath party, found a use of it as holding ground to vent their frustrations with the whole horrid fiasco (ie "things were better with saddam, at least we had food and the streets were safe to walk at night"). I'm sure you saw this after the inital euphoric feelings of "no more saddam" wore off and the looting began. The "why aren't the Americans doing anything" phase began. It has been innumerably exacerbated in the time since by things like the lack of power, water, and a steady supply of food. You can eventually blame everything on the invasion because without it none of this would have ever happened. But the fact of the matter is the US military planning dept. didn't want to concentrate the majority of troops in Iraq, if not for contingencies' sake.
Quote:
Re the Iranian 'terrorists' causing 'chaos': actually the Shi'i are have been living in Iraq (which was essentially Persia before being split into Iraq/Iran) for 1500 years and it is the place where their religion originated. Under Saddam they were persecuted and subjected to genocide and now they want their voice (and home) back - something the US promised them in the war run-up but will never deliver. So they are fighting an occupying power which could have got them on board instead of threatening Iran with the same fate as Iraq. This to you is a terrorist.
I know they were persecuted under Saddam; I'm not denying that. I'm aware of the history.
The whole idea of the "democracy" the US is attempting to set up in Iraq; is to set a model for a successful peaceful Islamic state with effective/fair representation.
Iraq?s new Governing Council is something of a curious interim creation. It is not an elected government, yet it is not exactly, at least officially, a creature of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) led by Paul Bremer. Bremer and his people certainly hammered the Council together after long consultations between various factions, and created something which brought most, but not all, of the key factions together. Yet the Council essentially announced itself, so as not to appear a mere creature of the Coalition. While there were some parallels to the Bonn process which created an interim government for Afghanistan, much was also sui generis. The Council was originally expected sooner, but it was also expected at one point to be essentially an advisory council, while it now is described as a ?Governing Council? with policy powers which, while its actions can be vetoed by Bremer and the CPA, will reportedly be left relatively free to carry out its own policies. It will have the power to appoint and dismiss ministers to head the ministries during the reconstruction period. Next year it will have budgetary powers.
For the first time in modern Iraqi history the Council comes close to representing the ethnic and confessional mosaic of Iraq: 13 of its 26 members are Shi?ite. (Whether they are the most representative Shi?ites is already a subject of debate in that community.) It includes many exile leaders who worked against Saddam Hussein from abroad, including Ahmad Chalabi, once seen as the designated future leader at least by the Department of Defense. But it also includes the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
key The membership of the Council represents most of the major non-Ba?athist elements in the country. There is no monarchist (though the main pretender to the throne, Sharif Hussein bin ?Ali, has returned to Baghdad), and no representative of the radical Shi?ite Sadr Movement. But the pro-Iranian SCIRI is represented, along with the Da?wa Islamic Movement and a prominent independent Shi?ite cleric, Muhammad Bahr al-?Ulum.
The Shi?ites, by most reckonings, have 13 of the 25 seats, though they may have 14 if one figure identified by some sources as Shi?ite and by others as Sunni is Shi?ite. But the 13 include the Shi?ite head of the Iraqi Communist Party, who is, needless to say, not religious, and figures such as Chalabi, who is clearly a secularist.
By most counts there are five Sunni Arabs, including some tribal leaders.
The five Kurds (who are also Sunni) include representatives of the two major groups and several smaller ones. There is one Christian and one Turkmen. Three of the members are women (two Shi?ites and the Turkmen)."
Quote:
I'm very much afraid that Bush is going to have to learn this the hard way and it will be an expensive lesson. Nothing will save US troops once the Israelis murder Arafat (and they will anyday now). The troops are sitting ducks when that goes off and all Bush can do is threaten Iraq rather than reign in Israel - it didn't have to be this way, all it needed was a bit of diplomacy but this administration is singularly incapable of that and understands only the stick and not the carrot.
Any day now and the whole s**house is going to go up and when it does the intifada, 911, Iraq, Afghanistan are all going tyo look like a girl guide's picnic...
Well that would certainly suck, I agree. If Osama's reappearance in the news and reports of al qaeda attemtping to aquire cold war engineered "fast spreading" bio-weapons from Chechnya are any indication; I SEVERELY HOPE U.S. intelligence has vastly improved since 2001.
Jane's Intelligence Review
""sub-state terrorist organizations, including Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, have an active interest in developing BT (bio-terrorism) capability."
Don't forget ol' Mohammed Atta who repeatedly visited a crop dusting airstrip in Belle Glade, Florida, prior to the hijacking attacks and asked many questions on a variety of topics, including how many chemicals a crop dusting plane could hold.
Killing Arafat does not seem like soundest decision. I can only hope the current admin. uses this as an opportunity to reposition itself as an impartial mediator.
I don't however agree with your logic that it would somehow be our fault if there were another US attack. If you took some time to analyze Al Qaeda's MO, you'd realize it's not based on logic. It's based on an obscure translation of islam, which btw is not favorably viewed by the majority of muslims.
al qaeda's goals include:
* to drive Western and non-Muslim influence from the Muslim part of the world
* to fight a "holy war", or jihad, against the United States and the western world, with the intent to destroy it
* to eradicate the state of Israel
* to support Muslim fighters in local wars
* to create and support radical Islamic groups around the world
* to overthrow Muslim governments in Asia and Africa, to establish a superpower based on fundamentalist Islamic beliefs and without internal borders
Umm you know what a hyperbole is right? I'm trying to make a point, the war is far from over. it is similar to Vietnam in many ways. it's a new kind of war, that is being brought to our home turf. Like Vietnam, the government acted against the public's will, most people did not want war. And Bush needed to and needs UN involvement.
Isn't it nice to know that we could double the money spent on education in the US or solve the world hunger problem but instead we are fighting in Iraq.
Such wonderful use of tax money or should I say deficit money. Right now the US is on track not just for the largest deficit ever but also the biggest percent of GDP deficit ever.
Of course this all pales in comparison the cost of the troops being injured or dying. The Observer (UK paper) reported today that a total of 6000 US troops have been medically evacuated from Iraq since march. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...041722,00.html Bush must be proud.
Given that the US government donates the smallest percentage of it's GDP of any other developed country (Japan is #1), I don't mind if they decide to spend $87 Billion. It should bring us closer to the norm in terms of donations.
Umm you know what a hyperbole is right? I'm trying to make a point, the war is far from over. it is similar to Vietnam in many ways. it's a new kind of war, that is being brought to our home turf. Like Vietnam, the government acted against the public's will, most people did not want war. And Bush needed to and needs UN involvement.
Every day our position in Iraq is getting worse.
I realize your trying to make a point, but the analogy (even exaggerated) isn't very sound. It's been less then 6 months since the start of this war; Vietnam lasted 21 years. It is theorically possible that this war could last that long or longer, but far from probable. Being viewed as conquerors is in no way beneficial to the source problem this whole war, long term, is attempting to challenge; the psychosocial-proclivity for terrorism in the middle east. If anything it more resembles the Spanish-American war (which lasted 8 months); which although being fought over Cuba's right to independence, initiatied the century spanning collapse of oppressive European empires that ended with the disintegration of the Soviet incarnation of czars in '91. The U.S. wants to make sure Iraq won't go to hell in a handbasket after they leave, 'cause once they're gone they can't just say, "gee, this isn't what we had in mind guys, let us come back in and fix everything", that wouldn't go over too well. Alot of the animosity stems from the fact that part of the population feels berated and generally unimpressed with the US's rate of restoring, for lack of a better term, pre-war normalcy. All Iraqis don't want to kill Americans.
If your refering to the war on terrorism being brought to "our home turf", the available evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda is less then convincing. I agree everything in Iraq is not all sunshine and daisys; and many things could and should have been done better. I'm glad the admin. is at least attempting to involve more UN active involvement now. Public sentiment, be it anywhere, is in most part influnced by media and locally surrounding perceptions/interpretations. As for your suggestion that "most people did not want war", it's entirely false, insofar as the US population. The majority of the country supported action against Iraq (66 vs 29%), the dividing issue was whether or not to wait for a larger UN approval (59% wanted to wait for allies, 37% wanted to take action without allies) (Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social ResearchCBS News/NEW YORK TIMES Monthly Poll #2, February 2003 )
I'm by no means a avid (or any other form of) republican, as you can see from my previous posts. I'm not pro-Bush or pro-Bush agenda (in fact i have ALOT of disparaties with many of his admins decisions). I don't pretend I hold all the answers; or believe I have some epiphany every time news occurs which I have some fundamental disaccord with. This is the age of information; and being such gaining/holding stratigic intelligence, with regard to national security (i.e. averting terrorism), secret is a necessity in order to build on it without it becoming obsolete.
I can just hope that they (anti-terrorism think tanks) did their research and this doesn't make things worse instead of better. As far as the future is concerned, I hope the US puts less emphasis on using military force and more emphasis on diplomacy. I think that if we're to ameliorate the problem of terrorism we've got to win "the hearts and minds" in the Arab and Islamic world. To convey the fact that the US isn't the "great devil" it's painted to be by many radical fundamentalists.
On one hand I'm disgusted, but when so many of your fellow soldiers have been killed and you're basically a sitting duck, you can get very trigger happy.
I can just imagine how badly these American soldiers want to get the hell out of Iraq...but can't.
as a former air force veteran of the first gulf war i can only imagine.
this amount of discontent being expressed by soldiers is unheard of,i can tell you that for sure.
i really feel for our guys over there.
i feel the bush administration is hanging them out to dry.
i strongly disagree with the bush administrations reasons for going over there,but since we are there we should do it right and not have a politically correct war which i believe this is turning out to be.
our guys ARE sitting ducks.
how do they know who is their friend or who is their foe?
we cant get out now because iraq will become the newest terrorist training ground.
muslims from all over are going to iraq to fight against our boys.
this whole scheme is making the united states and the rest of the world not more safer,but less safer.
i can only tell those of you reading this to become involve in your community and vote.
Comments
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Yes, the UN is less effective than it could or should be - but bringing it into Iraq really is the only option. It will share the burden and finally bring some semblance of legitimacy to the action.
As much as I wish you were right, I think otherwise. Judging from the sentiment currently running in Europe, I am pretty certaint that at least France and Germany will not share any burden. If I talk to people over here, there is a lot of anger and the last thing people are willing is our government bailing out the Bush administration financially or with whatever limited military capabillites Germany has.
Schröder was elected in a patriotic wave because a) he firmly opposed the war and b) he was attacked by Rummie and Bush. I am pretty certain that he would have liked to backtrack on his firm position, but after the relations got even worse, I doubt he still cares. Germany is still paying for the reunification and he will doubtlessly try to satisfy Bush with some nice words and some spare change (I am talking about less than a billion Euros, compared to Bushs 85bn $). And, as far as I can see, the mood in France is even worse, la grande nation is really pissed and glad to grab the chance to lead the EU in a confrontation with the US.
Not that this bothers me really - you have enough money over there, but I am thinking about the Iraqis and their uncertain future. Killing 11 policemen is exactly what the islamist propaganda has been waiting for, one just cannot excuse it as a consequence of war and a hostile environment. Invasion leads to deceit and traps leads to humiliation and killings of innocent citicens leads to more radicals and suicide bombers...
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Oh yes it's really a problem. The chief of the police in Iraq is not an idiot : it's the former chief of the police of New York. If it was so simple to have more policemen, he will already have the correct number. A policeman do not born from nothing : he must have faith in his job, and recieve the proper training.
I believe the only thing holding up the additonal 32,000 police officers is the fact you have to properly train each one, as you said. 40,000 is only .16 percent of the population. I'm sure you can easily find .16 percent of the population who can be properly trained, but you still have to do background checks on each applicant and then, because they've been under a different system for the past 30 years, have to get them out of that mindset and method they've been working in. It'll take longer than a few months to do just that. Even after hiring the initial group, they weren't adhering to proper police methods a couple of months after being hired. It takes time.
Perhaps but Iraqi have less confidence in US troops, than US troops in their own army. Psychology is more powerfull than pure logic. [/B]
True. Perhaps the Iraqis have more confidence in the US troops than they do in the Iraqi's who are commiting the crimes themselves. If that is the case, then the Iraqi's who want police jobs are going to be more worried about Iraqi's doing something harmful to them and their families than they would about Americans screwing up. Which would be the whole point in them accepting a job (i.e. wanting to help stabilize Iraq).
Originally posted by bunge
Given the fact that you've shown us no facts as to why this is impossible, why don't you support your case? The army has had many months to prepare for temporary occupation. They know they have check points. They're evidently not prepared.
The article I had read, which was different than the one posted, made a subtle reference to the checkpoint, which I overlooked. I agree that in this stage of the conflict the military should try and take less violent methods in stopping traffic at a checkpoint, e.g. tire slashers or concrete barricades. However, it appears from the article I read that while the vehicles were approaching the checkpoint, none actually ran it (the drove off the side of the road). If that were the case then tire slashers would've been useless. Also, the only vehicle in which Iraqi police were killed were an unmarked pickup truck with a machine gun mounted on it that apparantly came out of nowhere to help in the pursuit of the BMW.
Originally posted by X X
However, it appears from the article I read that while the vehicles were approaching the checkpoint, none actually ran it (the drove off the side of the road). If that were the case then tire slashers would've been useless.
This is where we'll never know what happened. If they never even got to the checkpoint, why shoot? How can legitimate police run around in a pickup with a gun mounted on top, but no official markings?
Either way I guess I'd have to support them guarding the checkpoint, if it's important enough to have, but they need a better solution than 'shoot as they approach.'
Originally posted by bunge
This is where we'll never know what happened. If they never even got to the checkpoint, why shoot? How can legitimate police run around in a pickup with a gun mounted on top, but no official markings?
Either way I guess I'd have to support them guarding the checkpoint, if it's important enough to have, but they need a better solution than 'shoot as they approach.'
Why shoot? I don't know. I guess we'll have to wait for the military's official explanation. Maybe they thought the truck was after the police or something and they were trying to protect the police, however, that is only speculation and still leaves some questions.
The articles I read: one from yahoo and the other from iwon are slightly different in what is said. The yahoo article mentions nothing about there being a checkpoint and the iwon does only twice. Both articles give differing views, albeit slightly, on what happened. I guess we will never know what actually happened considering they took quotes from the same person. Hmmm!
I think they do need a better solution than just shoot as they approach. However, from reading the e-mails I got from a friend of mine about his experiences in Iraq, it seems it's easier said than done. Usually, when they think their lives are in danger, the act first, think later. It's true "fight or flight" reaction.
Seeing how our forces are the only ones that seem to be targeted, I would like us to scale down our presence immensely, whether it be by numbers or just keeping our troops inside a safe building and only go out to do pinpoint raids. Given the fact that I think the media does a poor job a painting the entire picture as to what's going on over there, it's probably not as easy as doing what I said.
Truth be known, I believe our government was ill prepared for the aftermath and now they seem to be doing things in a haphazard way. Maybe Clark will win in 2004 and straighten this mess out. LOL!
--
bummed
Originally posted by Aquatic
This isn't the Army's fault. I feel sorry for the troops. It's Vietnam II. They are just trying to stay the **** alive. How do they know if a civilian is a suicide bomber, or hiding gun or grenade. Who knows if there's an RPG behind each window. The problem is not just not enough Iraqi police but not having the UN there. U.N. Invited indeed. The idiots in America who support our President deserve to be pushed down a set of stairs. He cut benefits for people CURRENTLY in Iraq. I don't care if it was him or his office, it got through. And now he is telling the UN how to do its job. I personally hope this Iraq mess gets much worse and the UN fails. So then, we can have a new, STRONGER UN take its place. One that does not answer to the US. One that the US answers to.
Does anyone here plan on voting for Bush in '04? If so do you have any family in Iraq?
First of all Iraq is far from what vietnam was.
Total Vietnam deaths = 58,202
Total Iraq deaths = 289 = 185 in hostile action and 104 "nonhostile" incidents, which include accidents.
Interactive: U.S. troop deaths in Iraq
Secondly almost all of the attacks are from remaining Bath party loyalists, which make up a very small percentage of Iraqis, and terrorists who migrate into Iraq from surrounding countries for the express purpose of attempting to cause chaos to rouse the local population.
I don't necessarily agree with all of the Bush adminiatrations decisions (Clear Skies initiative which elimates the need for aging plants to install pollution controls and anyone who's ever taken ECON will tell you tax cuts alone will not stimulate the economy), but I'm also not ignorant enough to believe Bush actually has a say in most of his proposals. I also don't believe your desire to create a "STRONGER UN" which "does not answer to the US" is very well thought out. The purpose of the UN now, as it was in 1945, is to represent the views of the countries of the world to promote peace, security, and economic development.
As for the renowned WMD "scandal" it should have been obvious this wasn't the reason for going to Iraq; the decision was made after research was completed by private psycho-oppugn think tanks, who hold contracts with the DoD, reached consensus. Iraq was the most logical point to implant democracy while creating the least amount of aggravation in the middle east.
Ignorance + despair = recipe for radical conditioning
The only way to eliminate terrorism is to remove it's root causes.
Bush even went so far as to almost say it on his Sept. 11 address in Pennsylvania; where he said the US wouldn't stop until Iraq had become a free "democracy".
anyway, there may be a subtle psychological positive to this recent tragedy of killing teh policemen . . . and we can see it in the Tribal call to strike . . . namely the police will not be percieved as being soley the puppets of the Americans as they had been but will be percieved as also being part of teh 'us' against 'them' by the Iraqis . . . then they will start to respect the police and order might ensue
who knows, its a long shot but we need to look at each sliver of light in this Bush-blundered darkness
If the police vehicle was not properly marked or otherwise drawing suspicion for some reason, it's almost understandable
Killing human beings in their own country which you have occupied is barbaric murder.
The worst thing is that the people who were massacred were some of the few human beings in the country willing to assist US forces in their 'attempt' to rebuild the infrastructure which they have so totally destroyed.
The only way to eliminate terrorism is to remove it's root causes.
Absoloutely. And the best way to increase 'terrorist' activities is to reinforce the reasons they are fighting thus hardening resolve and converting new recruits to their cause. Just ask the IRA, PLO, ETA, ANC, French Resistance etc...
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 anyway, least of all the many thousands of innocent civillians who have been blown up or shot dead.
Here's a list, compiled by historian William Blum, of countries which the US bombed between the end of World War 2 and the current war in Iraq
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Vietnam 1961-73
Laos 1964-73
Guatemala 1967-69
Cambodia 1969-70
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador throughout the 1980s
Nicaragua throughout the 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991 and throughout the 1990s
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001
In how many of these instances did a stable democratic society, respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result?
Zero.
almost all of the attacks are from remaining Bath party loyalists, which make up a very small percentage of Iraqis, and terrorists who migrate into Iraq from surrounding countries for the express purpose of attempting to cause chaos to rouse the local population.
Says who? There are dozens of groups now vying for power and there is a civillian population which has had a robust infrastructure destroyed by the invading army and which has seen innocent people killed.
To blame migrating 'terrorists' from other countries and Baath party loyalists is to regujitate the crap that the White House is feeding you without looking at the bloody obvious. The American army is almost universally hated by everyone in Iraq and the neighboring countries anyone with the mind to is liable to start taking pot-shots at the soldiers. You'd do the same if your home town was occupied by foreign invaders wouldn't you?
Says who? There are dozens of groups now vying for power and there is a civillian population which has had a robust infrastructure destroyed by the invading army and which has seen innocent people killed.
To blame migrating 'terrorists' from other countries and Baath party loyalists is to regujitate the crap that the White House is feeding you without looking at the bloody obvious. The American army is almost universally hated by everyone in Iraq and the neighboring countries anyone with the mind to is liable to start taking pot-shots at the soldiers. You'd do the same if your home town was occupied by foreign invaders wouldn't you?
I'm hardly regurgitating from White House press briefings and am certainly not trying to "blame" anyone. Here's a couple exampes:
"The Financial Times
Charles Clover June 06, 2003
This was in the UK publication of the FT.
US forces in Iraq said on Thursday they had arrested members of an Iranian-backed militia group in connection with attacks on US troops, in a development that could further strain relations between Washington and Tehran.
A military spokesman said 20 members of the Badr Corps militia had been detained on May 21 in connection with at least one rocket attack on US forces.
It is the first time the US has publicly linked the Badr Corps and its mother organisation, the Supreme Council for the Islamic revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), to anti-American violence. Nine US soldiers have been killed in Iraq in the past 10 days, in attacks that have been blamed mostly on former members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party and members of the Sunni minority.
SCIRI is based in Tehran and represents elements of the Shi'a majority, which forms 55 per cent of Iraq's population; it was part of a committee of Iraqi opposition parties endorsed by Washington before the outbreak of war.
But US officials suspect the organisation has been used to extend Iran's influence in postwar Iraq. The group is led by Mohammed Baqir al Hakim, a Shi'a cleric."
The Straits Times, owned and operated out of Singapore
SEPT 1, 2003 MON
"Nabbed foreigners practise Wahhabism from which Osama draws direction; it has little tolerance for other Sunnis, Shi'ites
NAJAF (Iraq) - Police have arrested 19 men, all linked to Al-Qaeda, in connection with Friday's car bombing of the Imam Ali shrine here.
Four men arrested shortly after the attack had given information leading to the arrests of the others, an official told reporters on Saturday.
Advertisement
Those nabbed included two Kuwaitis and six Palestinians with Jordanian passports. The remainder were Iraqis and Saudis, the official said on condition of anonymity.
The foreigners had entered Iraq from Kuwait, Syria and Jordan. They belonged to the Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam and all are connected with the Al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Wahhabism is the strict, fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam from which Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden draws spiritual direction.
Based in Saudi Arabia, its followers show little tolerance for non-Wahhabi Sunnis and Shi'ites.
US officials have yet to confirm details of the arrests.
The Najaf bombing set off a wave of criticism among Shi'ites for America's inability to provide security nearly four months after US President George W. Bush declared the Iraq war proper to be over.
Despite official denials, there have been signs for months that Muslim extremists have travelled to Iraq to take on US-led forces.
The Washington Post reported last week that a man believed to be an Al-Qaeda operative had been arrested by US troops in Iraq while in possession of 11 surface-to-air missiles.
The man acknowledged he had been training with Ansar al-Islam fighters to use the weapons against US forces.
Many of the men going to Iraq had previously fought in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Bosnia and are experts in guerilla warfare, according to ex-fighter Abdullah Bjad Al-Otaibi.
He once counted himself among the extremists and now writes about them for Saudi newspapers.
Such extremists are looking to die, he said.
'The quickest way to heaven, as far as they're concerned, is fighting infidels, in this case represented by the US forces in Iraq.'
The American authorities have not taken an active public role investigating the Najaf bombing because of Iraqi sensitivity to any US presence at the shrine, the most sacred Shi'ite site in Iraq.
Officials said more than 90 people, including leading Shi'ite cleric, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer Al-Hakim, died in the car bombing there.
At the bomb site, people chanted, beat their breasts and wept at the doors of the mosque, which was closed for three days of mourning.
They wanted vengeance for the killing of Ayatollah Al-Hakim, a cherished Shi'ite leader and opponent of Saddam Hussein.
He had only recently returned from exile in Iran.
The authorities said they had recovered only the Ayatollah's hand, watch, wedding ring and pen.
'Our leader Al-Hakim is gone. We want the blood of the killers of Al-Hakim,' a crowd of 4,000 men chanted, beating their chests. "
Originally posted by segovius
AlPanther, I think womblingfree was referring to your suggestion that the attacks were the results of the Ba'ath sympathisers.
Actually there are very, very few Ba'ath activists operational in Iraq now - for the simple reason that ordinary Iraqis want to kill them as much as the US do. The idea that they enjoy any support whatsoever or are respinsible for the attacks is, I'm afraid, more WhiteHouse disinfo (that's lies to you and me).
Baath activists are not necessarily Baath party members. It all has to do with perception. Alot of Iraqis who weren't explicit members of the Baath party, found a use of it as holding ground to vent their frustrations with the whole horrid fiasco (ie "things were better with saddam, at least we had food and the streets were safe to walk at night"). I'm sure you saw this after the inital euphoric feelings of "no more saddam" wore off and the looting began. The "why aren't the Americans doing anything" phase began. It has been innumerably exacerbated in the time since by things like the lack of power, water, and a steady supply of food. You can eventually blame everything on the invasion because without it none of this would have ever happened. But the fact of the matter is the US military planning dept. didn't want to concentrate the majority of troops in Iraq, if not for contingencies' sake.
Re the Iranian 'terrorists' causing 'chaos': actually the Shi'i are have been living in Iraq (which was essentially Persia before being split into Iraq/Iran) for 1500 years and it is the place where their religion originated. Under Saddam they were persecuted and subjected to genocide and now they want their voice (and home) back - something the US promised them in the war run-up but will never deliver. So they are fighting an occupying power which could have got them on board instead of threatening Iran with the same fate as Iraq. This to you is a terrorist.
I know they were persecuted under Saddam; I'm not denying that. I'm aware of the history.
The whole idea of the "democracy" the US is attempting to set up in Iraq; is to set a model for a successful peaceful Islamic state with effective/fair representation.
The Estimate Volume XV, Number 14 July 11, 2003
"Iraq?s New Governing Council: A Profile
Iraq?s new Governing Council is something of a curious interim creation. It is not an elected government, yet it is not exactly, at least officially, a creature of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) led by Paul Bremer. Bremer and his people certainly hammered the Council together after long consultations between various factions, and created something which brought most, but not all, of the key factions together. Yet the Council essentially announced itself, so as not to appear a mere creature of the Coalition. While there were some parallels to the Bonn process which created an interim government for Afghanistan, much was also sui generis. The Council was originally expected sooner, but it was also expected at one point to be essentially an advisory council, while it now is described as a ?Governing Council? with policy powers which, while its actions can be vetoed by Bremer and the CPA, will reportedly be left relatively free to carry out its own policies. It will have the power to appoint and dismiss ministers to head the ministries during the reconstruction period. Next year it will have budgetary powers.
For the first time in modern Iraqi history the Council comes close to representing the ethnic and confessional mosaic of Iraq: 13 of its 26 members are Shi?ite. (Whether they are the most representative Shi?ites is already a subject of debate in that community.) It includes many exile leaders who worked against Saddam Hussein from abroad, including Ahmad Chalabi, once seen as the designated future leader at least by the Department of Defense. But it also includes the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
key The membership of the Council represents most of the major non-Ba?athist elements in the country. There is no monarchist (though the main pretender to the throne, Sharif Hussein bin ?Ali, has returned to Baghdad), and no representative of the radical Shi?ite Sadr Movement. But the pro-Iranian SCIRI is represented, along with the Da?wa Islamic Movement and a prominent independent Shi?ite cleric, Muhammad Bahr al-?Ulum.
The Shi?ites, by most reckonings, have 13 of the 25 seats, though they may have 14 if one figure identified by some sources as Shi?ite and by others as Sunni is Shi?ite. But the 13 include the Shi?ite head of the Iraqi Communist Party, who is, needless to say, not religious, and figures such as Chalabi, who is clearly a secularist.
By most counts there are five Sunni Arabs, including some tribal leaders.
The five Kurds (who are also Sunni) include representatives of the two major groups and several smaller ones. There is one Christian and one Turkmen. Three of the members are women (two Shi?ites and the Turkmen)."
I'm very much afraid that Bush is going to have to learn this the hard way and it will be an expensive lesson. Nothing will save US troops once the Israelis murder Arafat (and they will anyday now). The troops are sitting ducks when that goes off and all Bush can do is threaten Iraq rather than reign in Israel - it didn't have to be this way, all it needed was a bit of diplomacy but this administration is singularly incapable of that and understands only the stick and not the carrot.
Any day now and the whole s**house is going to go up and when it does the intifada, 911, Iraq, Afghanistan are all going tyo look like a girl guide's picnic...
Well that would certainly suck, I agree. If Osama's reappearance in the news and reports of al qaeda attemtping to aquire cold war engineered "fast spreading" bio-weapons from Chechnya are any indication; I SEVERELY HOPE U.S. intelligence has vastly improved since 2001.
Jane's Intelligence Review
""sub-state terrorist organizations, including Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, have an active interest in developing BT (bio-terrorism) capability."
Don't forget ol' Mohammed Atta who repeatedly visited a crop dusting airstrip in Belle Glade, Florida, prior to the hijacking attacks and asked many questions on a variety of topics, including how many chemicals a crop dusting plane could hold.
Killing Arafat does not seem like soundest decision. I can only hope the current admin. uses this as an opportunity to reposition itself as an impartial mediator.
I don't however agree with your logic that it would somehow be our fault if there were another US attack. If you took some time to analyze Al Qaeda's MO, you'd realize it's not based on logic. It's based on an obscure translation of islam, which btw is not favorably viewed by the majority of muslims.
al qaeda's goals include:
* to drive Western and non-Muslim influence from the Muslim part of the world
* to fight a "holy war", or jihad, against the United States and the western world, with the intent to destroy it
* to eradicate the state of Israel
* to support Muslim fighters in local wars
* to create and support radical Islamic groups around the world
* to overthrow Muslim governments in Asia and Africa, to establish a superpower based on fundamentalist Islamic beliefs and without internal borders
Every day our position in Iraq is getting worse.
Such wonderful use of tax money or should I say deficit money. Right now the US is on track not just for the largest deficit ever but also the biggest percent of GDP deficit ever.
Of course this all pales in comparison the cost of the troops being injured or dying. The Observer (UK paper) reported today that a total of 6000 US troops have been medically evacuated from Iraq since march. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...041722,00.html Bush must be proud.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Umm you know what a hyperbole is right? I'm trying to make a point, the war is far from over. it is similar to Vietnam in many ways. it's a new kind of war, that is being brought to our home turf. Like Vietnam, the government acted against the public's will, most people did not want war. And Bush needed to and needs UN involvement.
Every day our position in Iraq is getting worse.
I realize your trying to make a point, but the analogy (even exaggerated) isn't very sound. It's been less then 6 months since the start of this war; Vietnam lasted 21 years. It is theorically possible that this war could last that long or longer, but far from probable. Being viewed as conquerors is in no way beneficial to the source problem this whole war, long term, is attempting to challenge; the psychosocial-proclivity for terrorism in the middle east. If anything it more resembles the Spanish-American war (which lasted 8 months); which although being fought over Cuba's right to independence, initiatied the century spanning collapse of oppressive European empires that ended with the disintegration of the Soviet incarnation of czars in '91. The U.S. wants to make sure Iraq won't go to hell in a handbasket after they leave, 'cause once they're gone they can't just say, "gee, this isn't what we had in mind guys, let us come back in and fix everything", that wouldn't go over too well. Alot of the animosity stems from the fact that part of the population feels berated and generally unimpressed with the US's rate of restoring, for lack of a better term, pre-war normalcy. All Iraqis don't want to kill Americans.
If your refering to the war on terrorism being brought to "our home turf", the available evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda is less then convincing. I agree everything in Iraq is not all sunshine and daisys; and many things could and should have been done better. I'm glad the admin. is at least attempting to involve more UN active involvement now. Public sentiment, be it anywhere, is in most part influnced by media and locally surrounding perceptions/interpretations. As for your suggestion that "most people did not want war", it's entirely false, insofar as the US population. The majority of the country supported action against Iraq (66 vs 29%), the dividing issue was whether or not to wait for a larger UN approval (59% wanted to wait for allies, 37% wanted to take action without allies) (Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research CBS News/NEW YORK TIMES Monthly Poll #2, February 2003 )
I'm by no means a avid (or any other form of) republican, as you can see from my previous posts. I'm not pro-Bush or pro-Bush agenda (in fact i have ALOT of disparaties with many of his admins decisions). I don't pretend I hold all the answers; or believe I have some epiphany every time news occurs which I have some fundamental disaccord with. This is the age of information; and being such gaining/holding stratigic intelligence, with regard to national security (i.e. averting terrorism), secret is a necessity in order to build on it without it becoming obsolete.
I can just hope that they (anti-terrorism think tanks) did their research and this doesn't make things worse instead of better. As far as the future is concerned, I hope the US puts less emphasis on using military force and more emphasis on diplomacy. I think that if we're to ameliorate the problem of terrorism we've got to win "the hearts and minds" in the Arab and Islamic world. To convey the fact that the US isn't the "great devil" it's painted to be by many radical fundamentalists.
Originally posted by satchmo
On one hand I'm disgusted, but when so many of your fellow soldiers have been killed and you're basically a sitting duck, you can get very trigger happy.
I can just imagine how badly these American soldiers want to get the hell out of Iraq...but can't.
as a former air force veteran of the first gulf war i can only imagine.
this amount of discontent being expressed by soldiers is unheard of,i can tell you that for sure.
i really feel for our guys over there.
i feel the bush administration is hanging them out to dry.
i strongly disagree with the bush administrations reasons for going over there,but since we are there we should do it right and not have a politically correct war which i believe this is turning out to be.
our guys ARE sitting ducks.
how do they know who is their friend or who is their foe?
we cant get out now because iraq will become the newest terrorist training ground.
muslims from all over are going to iraq to fight against our boys.
this whole scheme is making the united states and the rest of the world not more safer,but less safer.
i can only tell those of you reading this to become involve in your community and vote.