Progress in Iraq

[Tribesman]

``Every day, the number of Iraqi security forces are getting bigger, and they're getting better, and they're getting more experienced,''
Well there you have it , the truth today according to Rummy .

Completely in agreement with yesterdays testimony to congress by the US commander in Iraq that the number of Iraqi forces capable of operating by themselves is currently 1 battalion , which , as I am sure you realise , is great improvement on Junes figures of 3 battalions .

If such further exellent progress is maintained they should be able to hand over Iraqi security to the Iraqis in about...3 years ago .

[Hurin_Rules]

Yes indeed, that was quite odd. Even Republicans like McCain seemed to be loosing patience with General Casey, who, together with Rumsfeld and Meyers, was delivering the report to congress. For a bit more information, see this article on MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9531843/

[rasoforos]

How can you say that progress has not been made? The republicans are almost out of Iraq...they would allready be out if there was a day of doing it without the whole globe laughing at them...

...On the other hand the US forces have trained a rather large amount of resistance fighters who have joined the security forces for that reason exactly. Well...the resistance fighters seem to be much better now...that is progress...somehow...kinda...maybe...

I wonder how many months/years it will take until someone finds the courage to swallow his ego and say 'ok its vietnam all over again, let get the hell outa here'

[Tribesman]

Blimey Hurin , I hadn't read that one .
So according to that statement , in another 3 months they will have trained and equipped a total of 27,000 less people than were already trained and equipped over 6 months ago .
Are they making up numbers as they go along .~:confused:

[Red Harvest]

Estimating troop requirements hasn't exactly been a strength of Rummy & Co. so I can't say that I'm surprised. Just more of the same unfortunately. I find it hard to believe that we are making progress at this time. If there is something fundamental changing I'm not seeing it. There were some fundamental changes earlier (general Iraqi disgust with the bombings, etc), but they have not carried through as I had hoped.

Unless things start turning around soon, I suspect Iraq will go down in the books as having been lost in the first 3 months or so after the invasion. We needed to hit the ground running, and didn't.

[yesdachi]

I am sure I don’t know all the details of the training process but for the love of all I hold holy! How can it take so freaking long to train them? What do they need to know? Isn’t our basic training only 6 weeks? Aren’t they already soldiers? I mean they aren’t the marines or anything but were not training them to take over the Middle East, just to protect themselves, right?

Do you know how to fire a gun? Can you follow orders? Ok then, that guy (pointing at a bearded guy with puppet strings attached to a coalition soldier) is in charge. Bu-Bye.

Would they mess everything up if we just left a small force there to “guide” them? ~:confused:

[Dâriûsh]

Progress in Iraq? Isn't that a bit of an Oxymoron?

Not if you’re the Jama'at al-Tawhid wa’al-Jihad, better known as the Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

[Aurelian]

I'd like to know what happened to the other 2 battalions that were supposed to be ready to act independently. Why were they downgraded?

Oh... I guess I can sort of answer my own question. According to another article on this subject in USA Today (can't link at the moment), the downgrading of those two battalions was due to the US adopting a "new, more demanding standard" to assess readiness.

Just what that standard entails is not discussed, nor why it was felt that the old standard was insufficient.

The article also mentions in passing that Gen. Casey and Rumsfeld: "acknowledged that insurgents had infiltrated Iraqi security forces." But, they played down the significance and Casey said "we don't see it in the way that would render these forces incapable"... whatever that means.

I would think having your forces infiltrated by insurgents would render your forces perhaps not "incapable", but certainly compromised, less capable, and more vulnerable.

Of course, if you remember, during the 2004 debates Bush and Cheney were talking about the 100,000 trained Iraqi security forces that were supposedly already on duty. Yeah, right. Of course, they constantly changed those numbers. One would have assumed that trained Iraqi security forces might be expected to be able to do their jobs independently, but apparently that hasn't been the case.

That USA Today article also mentioned that a lot of Iraqi police aren't even being paid. You'd think that would be a top priority.


Here's a section from the article:

Rice defended Bush's contention during the debate that 100,000 trained Iraqi security forces are on duty, a figure that has been disputed by some Democrats in Congress.

Democratic members of the House Appropriations Committee were quoted by Reuters last week as saying that based on Pentagon documents they had seen, only about 23,000 Iraqi security forces, which include police, border patrolmen and national guard troops, had enough training to be "minimally effective."

"Not one single, solitary Iraqi policeman has completed the 24-week training course on the ground," Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CBS's "Face the Nation" last month.

Biden said his information came from Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who is in charge of recruiting and training operations, and Pentagon officials at the time could not say how many police had undergone the training course.

The Pentagon itself has had trouble coming up with a count of trained Iraqi forces. Initial estimates were 206,000, but Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last month the figure was less than half that.

"We figure we may still have that many people on the rolls. But of the ones that are trained and equipped, the number now looks to be, the latest number -- last week it was 105,000 -- now it looks to be 95,000, that is to say that are trained and equipped," Rumsfeld told the National Press Club on September 10.

That was ONE YEAR AGO. They really don't seem to have accomplished much in the last year.

[Kraxis]

Considering the effect of the police in the British area I would say that it is indeed a sort of progress that numbers are declining.~:rolleyes: :dizzy2:

[Tribesman]

Considering the effect of the police in the British area I would say that it is indeed a sort of progress that numbers are declining.
So the numbers of effective units are declining because they have found that Shia and Sunni arabs are "unreliable" as they may be sympathetic to one of the many militia or insurgent groups .
Which leaves the units that are mainly Pershmerga .
Unfortunately the State Dept identifies former Pershmerga units in the security forces as being responsible for murder , looting , extortion , corruption , extra-judicial killings , torture ....
Thats great , rely on 20% of the population to run the other 80% . Sounds just like Saddam all over again .
But that still doesn't addresss the complete fabrication of total numbers of personell .

Surely someone of the "war is good" or "we are making progress" persuation can make a post to explain it all .~;)

[Navaros]

i've heard that the USA has confimed that soldiers are planning to stay there for at least 6 more years. i guess stories like that don't get all that much press though

anyhow this whole "progress in Iraq" thing is hilarious in the sense that Iraq should be irrelevant to USA. Iraq was not USA's problem until the USA made it into a problem.

USA has no legitimate business being in Iraq, and now they're paying the price for forcing themselves into a place where they're not wanted. i don't feel sorry for them.

[Samurai Waki]

Things aren't looking too good in the states either. Protests are starting to launch everywhere. There has been a protest here with something like 6000 people that have been annoying people consitantly by blocking traffic and causing a general disruption is peoples social life. Pretty soon people are going to be like "hell, I'm sick of this constant disruption, just bring the boys in Iraq home already!"

[Redleg]

Surely someone of the "war is good" or "we are making progress" persuation can make a post to explain it all.

Naw - just let all the nay sayers have their cake and let them eat it to. Its more interesting that way.~:cool:

[Redleg]

But here are some links to the newest information coming out of the United States Army and the Department of Defense on Iraq

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2005/20050929_2877.html

http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=7987

http://www.mnstci.iraq.centcom.mil/

[Tribesman]

[/But here are some links to the newest information coming out of the United States Army and the Department of Defense on Iraq
B]
Very good Red , and of course the defense dept and army won't be contradicting these reports in 3 months time will they ~D ~D ~D
Wow 86 million and they can see some power lines going up and fixed some pumps , thats great . Now all they need is electricity to put through the power lines and some water to use the pumps .:dizzy2:
[B]just let all the nay sayers have their cake and let them eat it to.
Yes , when all is looking grim and descending into chaos , a complete refusal to accept the reality of the situation will always see you through .
Still , at least you have the balls to stand behind your government even when they are making a complete mess of it .
Your loyalty is admirable , misguided , but admirable still the same.~:cheers:

[Del Arroyo]

I dunno, if you ask me, there may be a positive future. The current levels of violence are about as bad as it can get, and if we can take this and not pull out, then we can stay there for the long haul if we decide that's best.

After a certain period of very intense violence without concrete signs of a US withdrawal, the insurgency will start to lose steam and progress may be possible. I hope so anyway, as there's a good chance I'll get mixed up in the middle of it within the next year or two.

DA

[rasoforos]

I dunno, if you ask me, there may be a positive future. The current levels of violence are about as bad as it can get, and if we can take this and not pull out, then we can stay there for the long haul if we decide that's best.

After a certain period of very intense violence without concrete signs of a US withdrawal, the insurgency will start to lose steam and progress may be possible. I hope so anyway, as there's a good chance I'll get mixed up in the middle of it within the next year or two.

DA

I dont think that people who try to resist an oppresor and liberate their country are tired that easily...

...their country has lost its independence and they are a nation with pride and history, they can fight for centuries and have done so before...

...a 'lets sit down and see how it goes policy' is too optimistic in my oppinion. Its a recipe for a new Vietnam.

[Del Arroyo]

I dont think that people who try to resist an oppresor and liberate their country are tired that easily...

...their country has lost its independence and they are a nation with pride and history, they can fight for centuries and have done so before...

...a 'lets sit down and see how it goes policy' is too optimistic in my oppinion. Its a recipe for a new Vietnam.

There is only one thing for certain-- they won't be able to keep up the current level of intensity for long. Even if nothing else changes and no one else does anything, at the very least the perpetrators and supporters of insurgent violence will become frustrated and take a rest.

If the US appears unmoveable, and does not move, and STILL does not move, the borderline supporters will become exhausted and go back to fence-sitting.

Endurance alone will not solve the problem, but it will without any question buy us a second chance. Now, whether we'll be able to act effectively on that chance is another story.

..

Another couple of points-- (1) This is not Vietnam, the circumstances are quite different, though some of the problems are the same. (2) Our two main problems in Vietnam were that we did not act decisively when we had the chance, and then we lost heart and quit at the first major reversal.

We've missed our first chance in Iraq, but if we don't lose heart and last through the current wave of carnage, we'll get another opportunity. We fought Filipino muslim insurgents for what? 12 years? before we pacified that country. We may be looking at a similar time frame for Iraq, if we wish to win.

And I personally don't feel we can afford to lose.

DA

P.S.: Rasoforos-- you wax all eloquent about the Iraqis' dignity and sovereignty and history, blah blah blah, but the truth is, it ain't all that clear-cut. It never is.

[Paul Peru]

But here are some links to the newest information coming out of the United States Army and the Department of Defense on Iraq

~D
As if anyone is going to trust any "information" from that source!
I'll go check out some fair and balanced information from Al Jazeera instead.

[rasoforos]

There is only one thing for certain-- they won't be able to keep up the current level of intensity for long. Even if nothing else changes and no one else does anything, at the very least the perpetrators and supporters of insurgent violence will become frustrated and take a rest.

If the US appears unmoveable, and does not move, and STILL does not move, the borderline supporters will become exhausted and go back to fence-sitting.



Ok. As long as you see the opposition as supporters of violence you wont see whats going on. Lets set aside US administration terms for a bit and venture into the real world.

This is a resistance movement. Its simple, you just dont get tired of fighting the oppressor, you go on and on and on and for as long as it takes. This is not some bandit group you are dealing against. The resistance is becoming more efficient and the occupation forces are causing more and more negative feelings.

Think of the case where someone invades your country. You wouldnt say ' oh I ll resist for a couple of years and then I ll give up '

Seeing the resistance the way you describe it let to comments like yours from the even before the war:

Bush and his friends were very sure they will be wellcomed in Iraq, they didnt believe that resistance existed...

Then they were sure that Iraq will stabilise in a few months....

Then they were sure it will stabilise in a couple of years...

Now they are sure it will stabilise in 5-6 years...


If the US administration doesnt move they:

1) Will have to spend a fortune on Iraq as they now do and they will leave the rest of the world alone... ( good )

2) Will get to repatriate yet more bodybags. The Iraqis have nothing to lose. On the other hand the US public will not accept losses for ever. 2000 troops have died and many many thousants have sustained permanent disability...

Iraq appeared to be a good way to win elections and a good way to finance a number of corporations. It has proven a costly mistake and , either conservatives want to realise it or not, it stinks of Vietnam. The Iraqis will be there to fight even after 5-10 or 50 years, I doubt the US army will...

[Tribesman]

We fought Filipino muslim insurgents for what? 12 years? before we pacified that country.
Try 40+ years , then a little break for a small world war then back to the same , and now the Phillipine government is fighting them .
Not a very good example to choose Del ~;)

There is only one thing for certain-- they won't be able to keep up the current level of intensity for long. Even if nothing else changes and no one else does anything, at the very least the perpetrators and supporters of insurgent violence will become frustrated and take a rest.

Thats what they have been saying since week one . Any progress yet ?

And I personally don't feel we can afford to lose.

I agree , which is why they shouldn't have chosen to start an unwinnable war .

[Redleg]

[/But here are some links to the newest information coming out of the United States Army and the Department of Defense on Iraq
B]
Very good Red , and of course the defense dept and army won't be contradicting these reports in 3 months time will they ~D ~D ~D
Wow 86 million and they can see some power lines going up and fixed some pumps , thats great . Now all they need is electricity to put through the power lines and some water to use the pumps .:dizzy2:
[B]just let all the nay sayers have their cake and let them eat it to.
Yes , when all is looking grim and descending into chaos , a complete refusal to accept the reality of the situation will always see you through .
Still , at least you have the balls to stand behind your government even when they are making a complete mess of it .
Your loyalty is admirable , misguided , but admirable still the same.~:cheers:

Poor misguided Tribesman you have no ability to guess why I posted that - you call it loyality. I posted it because its information - you may do with it as you please. However it seems its easier for you to dismiss the informaion verus looking into the whole picture.

Hell yes I still support the tumbling of Saddam's Regime. And in doing so the United States has an obligation to fix the rest of the country that we broke. Care to guess why I support it - after one has talked with Iraqi soldiers on the battlefield in 1991 - and discovered the conditions in which Saddam's regime forced them to fight under. How about driving through Iraqi Artilley postions and seeing the chemical munitions on the gun line. How about working with several Kuwaiti officers and enlisted after the war who gave me first hand accounts of Saddam Regime's actions to their countrymen. Or how about knowing that the only way the issue with Iraq was going to be resolved was that Saddam had to be removed. Hell lets just discount those facts because the administration has made a mess of the occupation. Lets just forget the past because a few bad soldiers have committed crimes that futher inflame passions in the area. Lets forget the past because of poor planning of the military to carry out an occupation of Iraq.

If you focus on that the United States screwed up because of a lack of proper planning of Occupation and fixing Iraq after we broke it - then I might just jump on the bandwagon - but going into Iraq to remove Saddam was the correct thing to do in my opinion. So why would I change my opinion on that because the adminstration and the military has made a mess of the occupation.

I am only loyal to what I took an oath to be loyal to, which by the way even though I am out of the military - I never forswore the oath that I took. That doesn't mean someone can not question the government nor its information. However it seems that some want to believe the negative press without looking at any other information that might be coming out of the country.

[Redleg]

~D
As if anyone is going to trust any "information" from that source!
I'll go check out some fair and balanced information from Al Jazeera instead.


By all means don't trust it - and check out AL Jazeera to - I read that web site at least once a month to get a prespective that I normally would not from reading American and European media. You might want to try looking at other sources to get information then just the ones that agree with your opinion.

So are you unable to look at multiple sources from multiple view points to come to a conclusion? Are you stuck so hard in idealogue that you can't look at other sources?

[Geoffrey S]

Hell yes I still support the tumbling of Saddam's Regime. And in doing so the United States has an obligation to fix the rest of the country that we broke.
That pretty much sums it up. Whether one agrees with the war or not, it was started and is still going on. Despite the unfavourable circumstances the US now has the responsibility to help Iraq rebuild, and I'd like to think other nations can play a part in helping Iraq and make the best of the situation rather than constantly bitching about past decisions. That helps no-one at the moment.

[Tribesman]

If you focus on that the United States screwed up because of a lack of proper planning of Occupation and fixing Iraq after we broke it - then I might just jump on the bandwagon - but going into Iraq to remove Saddam was the correct thing to do in my opinion. So why would I change my opinion on that because the adminstration and the military has made a mess of the occupation.

Well as it was patently obvious from the beginning what would happen , then if people had even given it the slightest bit of thought then they wouldn't have to change their minds would they ?
Why do you think most people object to this war , do you think it is because they want Saddam in power ???
Or do you think it is because it was a complete ballsup sold on a pile of bullshit from before the word go .:idea2:
Even the reconstuction has become so underfunded that your government has resorted to asking private citizens to make donations .
Time to dig deep , as the $600 raised so far is ever so slightly short of the millions needed .

[Navaros]

There is only one thing for certain-- they won't be able to keep up the current level of intensity for long. Even if nothing else changes and no one else does anything, at the very least the perpetrators and supporters of insurgent violence will become frustrated and take a rest.


i don't think this will happen. there are insurgents blowing themselves up every day

now that's about as strong of conviction as there can possibly be

and i'm pretty sure most of them have convictions which are that strong

they are fighting to preserve their religion and their way of life. "getting tired" is probably not ever going to happen to them.

[rasoforos]

Well said Navaros.

About Reconstruction:

What is reconstruction? Are we talking about bringing Iraq to pre-2003 levels of a stable thirld world country or to pre-1991 levels of an almost developed country?

From the point of view of an Iraqi, the americans established a dictator in their country ( shadam ) and then gave him weapons and money. They turned a blind eye on his human rights record for decades. Then they got back and took him off power destroying the country in the process and causing the direct death of thousants and the indirect death of millions ( life expectancy drop, huge infant mortality ). Now they have a new puppet council to control the country and the human rights abuse , with the US blessings and all new techniques, has resumed.

Nothing has changed for the average Iraqi.

And reconstruction cannot occur before the US administration wardogs and their multinationals get the hell out of Iraq. Noone will trust any international reconstruction efford before this happens...

[Del Arroyo]

We fought Filipino muslim insurgents for what? 12 years? before we pacified that country.
Try 40+ years , then a little break for a small world war then back to the same , and now the Phillipine government is fighting them .
Not a very good example to choose Del ~;)

Actually, according to this article, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HZY/is_1_17/ai_n8573960 , the US pacified Christian areas in 1902, and finally established control over Moroland in 1915. Now, there may have been some subversive activity after that point, but essentially the insurrection was over. There were other rebellions later on, but that's a different issue.


This is a resistance movement. Its simple, you just dont get tired of fighting the oppressor, you go on and on and on and for as long as it takes.

You keep repeating "they're a resistance movement!" as though somehow that makes them immune from the laws of gravity. YES, Ras, they are a RESISTANCE movement. Many RESISTANCE movements have been defeated before, and we can defeat this one with the right steps.

No matter how they fight or however "noble" you term their cause, they are mere mortal humans, and they can be killed or persuaded to behave themselves. We killed nearly all of the VietCong rebels in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive-- if we'd not then decided to give up, we could have won the war with the right actions.


Thats what they have been saying since week one . Any progress yet ?

i don't think this will happen. there are insurgents blowing themselves up every day

Actually, in case you haven't been paying very good attention to the Iraq situation, 90% or more of the suicide bombers are actually foreign fighters (though the foreigners make up a very small percentage of actual insurgents). So it seems that very few "resistance" fighters are quite that convinced, wouldn't you say?

We've been saying "they can keep up the current intensity for long" since the beginning-- and each time we've been right! There has always been variance in the level of violence the insurgents are able to produce. And that's just talking logistics. Currently the Sunnis have a steady supply of foreign idiots that they can use as ordnance, but what if that supply situation were to change? Everything changes with time.

But, more importantly, NOW, when it seems almost certain that the US will withdraw, when they can almost touch victory with the tips of their fingers, can almost taste it-- NOW, when they are doing literally all they can, if we do not move, MANY whose conviction is less strong will become discouraged. There is simply no arguing with this. They are insurgents and we are counter-insurgents and we both must obey the laws of gravity.

..

Many of you say the Iraqis have nothing to lose and therefore will win. But in truth, folks, however you view the overall situation or the US's chances of bringing a positive solution, currently we have nothing to lose by sticking it out, and EVERYTHING to lose by quitting.

US casualties are STILL low. Yes, soldiers are dying, but the insurgents have never been very efficient in this respect, they are even less-so now, and it is certainly not a strong argument for the US to leave. And yes, we are spending a great deal of money over there, but not a catastrophic amount. We can keep spending just as much or even quite a bit more, for many years, and not run the risk of a financial catastrophe (though if we don't repeal Bush's tax cuts then those could get us in trouble).

Furthermore, there is no draft, nor is there any on the horizon, and while many have severe doubts about our involvement in Iraq, few at home are truly resisting it. Yes, there are some pathetic whack-jobs trying to pretend it's still the 60's-- but they don't matter. Public support for the war has proven to be steadily sufficient, and that is unlikely to change in the near-long-term.

Simply put, we've spent hundreds of billions, sacrificed the lives of over 2000 americans and the limbs of thousands of others, as long as there's a long-shot chance of winning and we aren't critically low on resources (or public support), we've nothing to lose by staying. On the other hand, leaving would be a catastrophe. It would be an immediate catastrophe for the geo-political landscape in the middle east. And the sheer humiliation-- it is simply not thinkable, not while we have a shot at winning. We simply cannot afford to lose another goddamn war. Yes, we should pick our fights more carefully, but we've got this one, no sense crying now.

..

And a last note to those of you who are convinced the Iraqi insurgents are saints fighting towards a just and inevitable end-- why not go and join them? It certainly wouldn't be out of the ordinary-- plenty of Americans did it during the Spanish Civil War. Don't know how to work a gun? No worries! I'm sure they will think of very special assignments for you all. ~D

DA

[Tribesman]

Actually, in case you haven't been paying very good attention to the Iraq situation, 90% or more of the suicide bombers are actually foreign fighters (though the foreigners make up a very small percentage of actual insurgents). So it seems that very few "resistance" fighters are quite that convinced, wouldn't you say?

So you haven't been paying attention to the recent rise in local suicide bombers , and this weeks new first , a local female suicide bomber .

Actually, according to this article, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...17/ai_n8573960 , the US pacified Christian areas in 1902, and finally established control over Moroland in 1915. Now, there may have been some subversive activity after that point, but essentially the insurrection was over. There were other rebellions later on, but that's a different issue.
Really , I wonder who all those rebel leaders they were stringing up in the 20s and 30s , they must have been different Phillipino rebels eh ?

[Redleg]

Well as it was patently obvious from the beginning what would happen , then if people had even given it the slightest bit of thought then they wouldn't have to change their minds would they ?

Wow - you are gifted with 20/20 hindsight ability to call things correctly. What an amazing individual you are.



Why do you think most people object to this war , do you think it is because they want Saddam in power ???

LOL - nice try.



Or do you think it is because it was a complete ballsup sold on a pile of bullshit from before the word go .:idea2:

Better yet - but again your gifted with 20/20 hindsight.



Even the reconstuction has become so underfunded that your government has resorted to asking private citizens to make donations .
Time to dig deep , as the $600 raised so far is ever so slightly short of the millions needed .

News to me - but then I don't watch television to get my news either.

[Tribesman]

Wow - you are gifted with 20/20 hindsight ability to call things correctly. What an amazing individual you are.

Hindsight ??????? Get real Redleg .
Its foresight , as in looking at what is likely to happen , the same in Iraq as the situation in Afghanistan .
It isn't hard you know , it only takes a little bit of thinking .
Go back and look through the topics .:book:

News to me - but then I don't watch television to get my news either.
So none of your news sources carried the White Houses appeal for donations then ?
Maybe that is why they only managed to raise 600 dollars .

[Redleg]

Wow - you are gifted with 20/20 hindsight ability to call things correctly. What an amazing individual you are.

Hindsight ??????? Get real Redleg .
Its foresight , as in looking at what is likely to happen , the same in Iraq as the situation in Afghanistan .
It isn't hard you know , it only takes a little bit of thinking .
Go back and look through the topics .:book:


Why don't you look back through and enlighten us with your wisdom.

Or is it just easier to spout negative opinion after the fact?



News to me - but then I don't watch television to get my news either.
So none of your news sources carried the White Houses appeal for donations then ?
Maybe that is why they only managed to raise 600 dollars .

Or maybe the context of the appeal is not what you believe it to be. Lets see Bill Berkowitz's article might which is probably the source of your comment.

http://www.afsc.org/iraq/news/2005/09/paypal-ing-war.htm


Bill Berkowitz reveals an initiative by USAID to engage the U.S. public in Iraq by asking them to help privately fund relief projects. US policy has disabled and prevented humanitarian agencies and international institutions from working in Iraq, the effect has been to militarize relief. He mentions AFSC and the position on compensation. If you did not receive the Peace by Pieces earlier you should really look at it.

The USAID announcement

http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2005/pr050909.html

You might want to research what it really is since its part of an overall program that private citizens donate to projects that is sponsored by the USAID.


GlobalGiving's mission is to build a highly efficient marketplace where individuals, corporations, and other institutions can find and fund projects around the world. Since GlobalGiving launched in 2002, it has facilitated the flow of more than $2 million to over 400 projects.


GlobalGiving was sub-contracted by USAID to develop IraqPartnership. GlobalGiving develops similar customized giving portals to corporate, nonprofit, and official customers, and also supports a general site for international giving (www.globalgiving.com) that is accessible by anyone interested in giving directly to projects.

THe web site

http://www.iraqpartnership.org/cb/iraq/index.html

[Tribesman]

Or is it just easier to spout negative opinion after the fact?

Since it is the same "negative" opinion from the beginning then how can it be "after the fact" Red ?
Or maybe the context of the appeal is not what you believe it to be. Lets see Bill Berkowitz's article might which is probably the source of your comment.

Nope , it was Scott Mccellans announcment that was my first source , and yes I have viewed the USAid site and do know what it is and what it does .

[Redleg]

Or is it just easier to spout negative opinion after the fact?

Since it is the same "negative" opinion from the beginning then how can it be "after the fact" Red ?

Just giving you some of your own arguementive style.


Or maybe the context of the appeal is not what you believe it to be. Lets see Bill Berkowitz's article might which is probably the source of your comment.

Nope , it was Scott Mccellans announcment that was my first source , and yes I have viewed the USAid site and do know what it is and what it does .

And you seem to think it has alternative motives then what is stated - how very negative of you.

[Tribesman]

Just noticed that the forum will only go back 79 pages , so you cannot access my posts from before the invasion , the furthest back I could get was the assault on Fallujah .

And you seem to think it has alternative motives then what is stated - how very negative of you
Alternative motives ????
The government has asked its citizens to make donations to a Governmnet agency to help fund reconstuction and development in Iraq .
As the Government allocated a huge sum of money to cover these expenses already then why is there the need for extra funding ?
Because...... the administration had got its sums very wrong ....there has been a large amount of fraud and theft .....money allocated for work is being diverted to other purposes....expected revenue to the provisional/interim government has failed to materialise .

[Redleg]

Just noticed that the forum will only go back 79 pages , so you cannot access my posts from before the invasion , the furthest back I could get was the assault on Fallujah .

Now that is just to darn bad..



And you seem to think it has alternative motives then what is stated - how very negative of you
Alternative motives ????
The government has asked its citizens to make donations to a Governmnet agency to help fund reconstuction and development in Iraq .

For certain spefic projects. (the part you are leaving out)



As the Government allocated a huge sum of money to cover these expenses already then why is there the need for extra funding ?

Maybe because the expense is greater then what is planned.



Because...... the administration had got its sums very wrong ....there has been a large amount of fraud and theft .....money allocated for work is being diverted to other purposes....expected revenue to the provisional/interim government has failed to materialise .

there you go - that is the reason why they are asking. So what is your complaint again? Or is it just that you want to see only the negative in everything?

[Tribesman]

Now that is just to darn bad..

Would you like me to direct you to another forum where you can read lots of my posts from before , during and after the invasion Redleg , on both Iraq and Afghanistan ?
The main focus was on lack of planning , containment of the inevitable local conflict and post war restructuring .
Oh and the fact that they was rushing into an unneccasary mess over a pack of lies .

Maybe because the expense is greater then what is planned.

Ah ....bad planning again , lack of foresight .
So what is your complaint again?
See above ~;)

[Hurin_Rules]

I'm not going to wade in between Redleg and Tribesman, but I would like to point out that well before the war happened, many people (some within the US military) pointed out that Cheney and Rumsfeld's predictions were far too optomistic. When Cheney implied that the Americans would be greeted with 'flowers and candy' in the streets, many people, including myself, thought he had gone insane. The military's own estimates, from men like Shinseki, talked about 'several hundred thousand' US troops being needed. This is not hindsight. Many within the US military questioned Rumsfeld's 'war on the cheap' approach, and worried that there were not enough boots on the ground. Many analysts predicted an insurgency. And many laypeople understood that the Americans would not be greeted with flowers and candy.

I saw an interesting interview with a TV reporter the other day-- i can't remember which US network he was from, unfortunately. But he described a revealing incident. He noted that an Iraqi government commando team was about to go into an insurgent stronghold, as US military personnel looked on. The commando team was yelling in arabic to psyche itself up before charging in. The US commander asked what they were shouting. The translator replied, "Death to Sunni Arabs!"

The only possible outcome I see in Iraq right now is civil war, and I think its probably only a year or two away.

[Del Arroyo]

Actually Redleg, to be perfectly honest-- watching what was happening in Iraq, it was about one month after the fall of Baghdad that I felt there would surely be an insurgency.

I wanted to be wrong, but I wasn't. But it was clear to me at that very early date that things were being horribly bungled. That's some kind of sight but it sure ain't hindsight.

DA

[Geoffrey S]

It's weird.
Right-wing polticians underestimate potential problems in Iraq, or outright deny there are problems, whereas there was a lot of evidence at all phases of the war to show the opposite; basically just sticking their collective heads in the sand.

Left-wing politicians seem to believe all problems can be solved by withdrawing and leaving behind something of a mess, and spend most of the time slinging mud at past decisions; this doesn't help anyone in the slightest, least of all Iraqis.

Both pro- and anti-war politicians seem to lack the ability to take any kind of responsibility for the situation in Iraq and act according to how the situation really is, rather than engaging in factionalist politics and living in their little dream worlds. Sad, really.

[Red Harvest]

Actually Redleg, to be perfectly honest-- watching what was happening in Iraq, it was about one month after the fall of Baghdad that I felt there would surely be an insurgency.

I wanted to be wrong, but I wasn't. But it was clear to me at that very early date that things were being horribly bungled. That's some kind of sight but it sure ain't hindsight.

DA

I got concerned a bit earlier, when the Museum in Baghdad was sacked, and I heard the Admin and Military response to it: they couldn't maintain security. Simply put, we didn't have enough boots on the ground. McCain and others were right. The Administration tried to do this on the cheap. Even now I am constantly hearing that we have problems with insurgents re-establishing themselves when we leave after a sweep. That is a clear sign that we haven't had the requisite strength for the occupation.

The unfortunate thing is the lack of adequate security sent the signal that an insurgency could and would fluorish. It is one of those things where you only get one chance to show you have control. If you fail on that first attempt, you are screwed.

[Tribesman]

The unfortunate thing is the lack of adequate security sent the signal that an insurgency could and would fluorish.
A knock on effect of the lack of security is that vital reconstruction either cannot be done , is destroyed/damaged soon after it is done , has so much of its cash allocation spent on expensive mercenary security or moved to other budgets that there is not enough money to do the work in the firstplace .
Or for example , it is done in such a slapdash manner that it remains standing just about long enough to lodge the payment , before it falls apart .(though actually the biggest example of that was in Afghanistan not Iraq)

Both pro- and anti-war politicians seem to lack the ability to take any kind of responsibility for the situation in Iraq and act according to how the situation really is, rather than engaging in factionalist politics and living in their little dream worlds. Sad, really.
Thats politicians for ya Geoffrey~:argue:

[Redleg]

Now that is just to darn bad..

Would you like me to direct you to another forum where you can read lots of my posts from before , during and after the invasion Redleg , on both Iraq and Afghanistan ?

By all means - I rather enjoy reading your negative opinions on things. Its rather well humorous.



The main focus was on lack of planning , containment of the inevitable local conflict and post war restructuring .

And when you find them - you will find I was rather critical myself of the number of troops being used - as being to small. However don't let that interfer with your negative spin on everything.



Oh and the fact that they was rushing into an unneccasary mess over a pack of lies .

Can you prove they were lies - because its an easy word to say - but one that has not been shown to be fact. But don't let that interfer with how you like to only spin the negative.



Maybe because the expense is greater then what is planned.

Ah ....bad planning again , lack of foresight .
So what is your complaint again?
See above ~;)

Again what is your complaint - I all see is negative opinion on everything you post on. ~:eek:

[Redleg]

I'm not going to wade in between Redleg and Tribesman, but I would like to point out that well before the war happened, many people (some within the US military) pointed out that Cheney and Rumsfeld's predictions were far too optomistic. When Cheney implied that the Americans would be greeted with 'flowers and candy' in the streets, many people, including myself, thought he had gone insane. The military's own estimates, from men like Shinseki, talked about 'several hundred thousand' US troops being needed. This is not hindsight. Many within the US military questioned Rumsfeld's 'war on the cheap' approach, and worried that there were not enough boots on the ground. Many analysts predicted an insurgency. And many laypeople understood that the Americans would not be greeted with flowers and candy.

Bingo - go back and find some of my post and thoughts about the use of only three United States divisions and one British division.



I saw an interesting interview with a TV reporter the other day-- i can't remember which US network he was from, unfortunately. But he described a revealing incident. He noted that an Iraqi government commando team was about to go into an insurgent stronghold, as US military personnel looked on. The commando team was yelling in arabic to psyche itself up before charging in. The US commander asked what they were shouting. The translator replied, "Death to Sunni Arabs!"

Interesting - is it because that the people they happen to be fighting consist mostley of Sunni Arabs?



The only possible outcome I see in Iraq right now is civil war, and I think its probably only a year or two away.

That is a distinct possiblity given the current political and religious/ethnic make-up of the Iraqi provisional government. Given that they can not really agree on thier constitution, nor many other aspects of their own self-governing.

[Redleg]

It's weird.
Right-wing polticians underestimate potential problems in Iraq, or outright deny there are problems, whereas there was a lot of evidence at all phases of the war to show the opposite; basically just sticking their collective heads in the sand.

Correct - war never goes according to plan - and to pretend that it does is the failure of the Bush Adminstration.



Left-wing politicians seem to believe all problems can be solved by withdrawing and leaving behind something of a mess, and spend most of the time slinging mud at past decisions; this doesn't help anyone in the slightest, least of all Iraqis.

However the slinging of mud does have some effects. It polarizes the two sides into their camps. Prevents discourse on how to solve the issues other then requiring the troops to be withdrawn. It allows them to feel good about themselves because the right-wing aspects have been shown to be either mismanaged or wrong in their interpations or implentation.



Both pro- and anti-war politicians seem to lack the ability to take any kind of responsibility for the situation in Iraq and act according to how the situation really is, rather than engaging in factionalist politics and living in their little dream worlds. Sad, really.

Actually not completely correct - the United States and Great Britian have the obligation to fix what they have broken. That regardless of how you feel about the United States forcing the removing of Saddam's regime is indeed something that must be accomplished. Could it have been better? Sure - but only presenting an idealogue viewpoint on the issue is fun to counter when its such an obvious one at that.

[Hurin_Rules]

Interesting - is it because that the people they happen to be fighting consist mostley of Sunni Arabs?


Yes, it was a Sunni stronghold. The reporter was saying that although the fledgling government is trying to be ethnically diverse, in practical terms the different groups stick together and are still more loyal to tribe/religion/ethnicity than to the state of Iraq. Much of the country, he opined, was being ruled by tribal or religious militias and mafias.



That is a distinct possiblity given the current political and religious/ethnic make-up of the Iraqi provisional government. Given that they can not really agree on thier constitution, nor many other aspects of their own self-governing.

The vote on October 15th is going to be very important either way it goes, I think.

[Tribesman]

Negative Red , how about something positive .... the President has asked the Prime Minister to stand down , the Prime Minister has changed the rules on voting for the constitution , Coilition troops are on their fourth conscutive attempt to try and clear up a few villages and one of the Shia Militia(the ones who last week were apparently holding coilition troops prisoner) are doing the polices job by rescuing a captured cabinet minister .
Oops nothing positive there , maybe a change of policy would bring more postive events to write about .

Can you prove they were lies - because its an easy word to say - but one that has not been shown to be fact.
Where do you want to start ?...
"We know he has weapons of mass destruction , we know where these weapons are ....and thats a ...err....fact" good old Rummy eh ~;)
A slice of Yellowcake anyone ? 45 minutes is a very short time isn't it ? Nice pictures of mobile chemical weapons labs ?
All proven false , as are a multitude of others .

[Redleg]

Negative Red , how about something positive .... the President has asked the Prime Minister to stand down , the Prime Minister has changed the rules on voting for the constitution , Coilition troops are on their fourth conscutive attempt to try and clear up a few villages and one of the Shia Militia(the ones who last week were apparently holding coilition troops prisoner) are doing the polices job by rescuing a captured cabinet minister .
Oops nothing positive there , maybe a change of policy would bring more postive events to write about .

Maybe you are just looking in all the wrong places.



Can you prove they were lies - because its an easy word to say - but one that has not been shown to be fact.
Where do you want to start ?...
"We know he has weapons of mass destruction , we know where these weapons are ....and thats a ...err....fact" good old Rummy eh ~;)
A slice of Yellowcake anyone ? 45 minutes is a very short time isn't it ? Nice pictures of mobile chemical weapons labs ?
All proven false , as are a multitude of others .

All proven false - is correct. Now prove that they were lies. You know what constitutes a lie now don't you? It has something to do with willfully knowing what you are saying is wrong.

Now can you prove what they stated is a lie, or is it only that what was stated has shown to be false.

[Tribesman]

Maybe you are just looking in all the wrong places.

Wrong places ? OK lets try the Iraqi interior ministry for some good news....Foriegn fighters are leaving Iraq .....great news....oops it carries on .....they are taking their expertise that they have developed in Iraq and are going to spread it elsewhere .

Now can you prove what they stated is a lie, or is it only that what was stated has shown to be false.
What????the Niger documemnts were known to be forgeries , but they were still included in the claims regardless . That is an example of an outright lie . As was the 45 minute claim , they took a true statement , removed all the specifics and changed the context . As for Rummys comment , he describes it at as viewing things through a prism , when something passes through a prism it is distorted , even if what enters the prism is true then only using one facet to get your results is a distorion of the truth , distortion of the truth is a lie . The photos Powell put forward at the UN were said to be sequencial , in reality they were individual photos taken months apart .

[Divinus Arma]

Here is my final and standing opinion on the matter:


If we start fighting a government that WE instituted, Iraq will compltely go to crap.

We will lose all legtimicay and have to leave immediatley.

Then Iraq will suffer a horrible civil war. The Government will totally collapse and their will be no law, just regional strongmen.

The Kurds will declare independence in the North, drawing Turkey in to brutally squash it before Turkish Kurds attempt to secede.

The Sunnis will attempt to reassert their former authority by waging a genocidal war against the Shiites. Iran, mostly shiite, will get involved because they no longer have a reason not to. They still have scars from the Iraq/Iran war and will happily destroy a weakened Sunni power base.

Then the terrorists will develop new tactics in this messy environment and export this to other middle east countries in order to destabilize the region further. The Saudi Kingdom will be threatened by internal jihadists supported by foriegn terrorists.

Meanwhile, oil prices will go through the roof. Western economies will take a huge hit and inflation will soar.

With the world in chaos, China will seize the opportunity to invade Taiwan. The United States will be forced by treaty to support Taiwan and threaten military action against China. China will give us the finger and we will simultaneously invade Taiwan to liberate it and boycott all Chinese products.

Western economies will spiral further down due to the lack of cheap goods as terrorists export violence to the rest of Europe. EDIT: Pakistan will seize Kashmir. Then China, Iran, and Pakistan will declare a nuclear alliance. India will seek help from the U.S.

The U.S. and Europe will be unable to fight the middle and far east at the same time and institue conscription. A global conflict will ensue as the U.S. and Europe invade China and Iran.

Russia will be forced to make a decision, join Chinese Alliance or join Europe.

Urban battlefield tactics will be completely unnegotiable without civilan Casulaites. The west will be forced into true attrition warfare and purposely kill civilians.

Palestinains will dance in the streets. Liberals will scream that the U.S. is Evil. Bush will go down in history as the man who started WW3 with a preemptive invasion into a country without WMD or foriegn terrorists.

And may monkeys dance on all our graves.

[Tribesman]

Here is my final and standing opinion on the matter:

Not bad divinus , but I doubt the India /China /Pakistan alliance , all three have long standing border disputes/occupation of territory and all three have been at war with each other .

[Divinus Arma]

Here is my final and standing opinion on the matter:

Not bad divinus , but I doubt the India /China /Pakistan alliance , all three have long standing border disputes/occupation of territory and all three have been at war with each other .

You read my thing wrong. I said Pakistan, IRAN, and China will Ally, while India will seek our help. This is a real possibility if you look up Paki-Chinese relations. The only real conflict in that region is Indo-Paki over Kashmir.

[Redleg]

Maybe you are just looking in all the wrong places.

Wrong places ? OK lets try the Iraqi interior ministry for some good news....Foriegn fighters are leaving Iraq .....great news....oops it carries on .....they are taking their expertise that they have developed in Iraq and are going to spread it elsewhere .

Ah look still only seeing the negative in everything you look for regarding the situation in Iraq. What a wonderful world you must live in.




Now can you prove what they stated is a lie, or is it only that what was stated has shown to be false.
What????the Niger documemnts were known to be forgeries , but they were still included in the claims regardless . That is an example of an outright lie . As was the 45 minute claim , they took a true statement , removed all the specifics and changed the context . As for Rummys comment , he describes it at as viewing things through a prism , when something passes through a prism it is distorted , even if what enters the prism is true then only using one facet to get your results is a distorion of the truth , distortion of the truth is a lie . The photos Powell put forward at the UN were said to be sequencial , in reality they were individual photos taken months apart .

Then maybe you should become a lawyer and try to get them all brought up on charges. Try Tony Blair first since he would be a closer and most likely easier choice to get convicted if a criminal act has been done. ~:eek:

It seems no-one is convince that the evidence you mentioned is a out right lie. Several investigations have been done - in two countries - and look both governments are still standing - and no one has been convicted of lieing. So try again with statements that have not been shown to be lies.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Then maybe you should become a lawyer and try to get them all brought up on charges. Try Tony Blair first since he would be a closer and most likely easier choice to get convicted if a criminal act has been done. ~:eek:

It seems no-one is convince that the evidence you mentioned is a out right lie. Several investigations have been done - in two countries - and look both governments are still standing - and no one has been convicted of lieing. So try again with statements that have not been shown to be lies.

Convicted of lying? ~D

What kind of silly new crimes is this one? You can't be prosecuted for lying, can you? ~:handball:

If both UK and Us administration were not lying, they were still foolish and incompetent. I wonder if I would not prefer liars.

Otherwise.... it's not hindsight... Many people were opposing the war, and that was not out of love for Saddam, but mainly because the current situation was bound to happen. You seem to regret we got no access to backroom archive: I think it's mercifull, for that would not be a pretty sight for pro war advocate if those were raised by a necromantic bump.


If you focus on that the United States screwed up because of a lack of proper planning of Occupation and fixing Iraq after we broke it - then I might just jump on the bandwagon - but going into Iraq to remove Saddam was the correct thing to do in my opinion. So why would I change my opinion on that because the adminstration and the military has made a mess of the occupation.

Noone liked Saddam in power. There are many other regime I don't like. But I also know that, sometimes, the cost of removal is too high, or that the alternative is no better.
War got the inconvenience of increasing the removal cost, and degrading the qualities of alternative. It's not news, it's been like this for a very long time, and Irak is no exception.
It would have been better to remove Saddam in 1991; no question about that; the case was clearer, and support from country like Syria or Saudi Arabia easier to get, and there were a real insurgency that we let down.

It was probably the right thing to do back then... But that does not make it right 10 years later.
It's a mistake to correct mistakes 10 years later.

Louis,

[Redleg]

Convicted of lying? ~D

What kind of silly new crimes is this one? You can't be prosecuted for lying, can you? ~:handball:

Sure you can - what do you think Clinton was accused of? You might want to check on the defination of perjury. Here I will help you out since you seem to be unaware of the possiblity


Perjury: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing



If both UK and Us administration were not lying, they were still foolish and incompetent. I wonder if I would not prefer liars.

Your getting warm - foolish incompetenet and wanting to believe the information on its face value without looking at other sources of information. Something many here are just of guilty of doing.



Otherwise.... it's not hindsight... Many people were opposing the war, and that was not out of love for Saddam, but mainly because the current situation was bound to happen. You seem to regret we got no access to backroom archive: I think it's mercifull, for that would not be a pretty sight for pro war advocate if those were raised by a necromantic bump.


I don't regret it at all - its called sacrasm. And many who opposed the war were not thinking about the current situation - they were only opposing it because they disagreed with the necessity of the conflict. Again hindsight is always 20/20.



Noone liked Saddam in power. There are many other regime I don't like. But I also know that, sometimes, the cost of removal is too high, or that the alternative is no better.
War got the inconvenience of increasing the removal cost, and degrading the qualities of alternative. It's not news, it's been like this for a very long time, and Irak is no exception.
It would have been better to remove Saddam in 1991; no question about that; the case was clearer, and support from country like Syria or Saudi Arabia easier to get, and there were a real insurgency that we let down.

It was probably the right thing to do back then... But that does not make it right 10 years later.
It's a mistake to correct mistakes 10 years later.

Louis,

So you would of supported allowing the sanctions to end, for Saddam to rebuild his WMD programs, and to continue to terrorize his own people?

You would of allowed his regime to remain unaccountable for the cease fire conditions that he violated - to include the returning and accounting of several thousand Kuwaiti citizens that were taken from their homes by Iraqi forces? And so many more little things that so many would just like to ignore.

How very noble of you.


(and yes I am being sacrastic once again)

[Tribesman]

Ah look still only seeing the negative in everything you look for regarding the situation in Iraq.
OK Red , post some positive things about Iraq . There was a topic about it a while ago , it turned out to be a very short topic .
What a wonderful world you must live in.

Same world as you live in , but it isn't my countries military that are getting killed in a war that they cannot win yet cannot afford to lose , and it isn't my government pouring my tax money into the quicksand .(In fact the cute whores are making money out of it , an advantage I suppose of prostituting themselves into the fringes of the coilition of the willing)
That is why you are so desperate to see it as positive , because to admit the failings would be to admit that your soldiers lives and your money are being wasted .

[Redleg]

Ah look still only seeing the negative in everything you look for regarding the situation in Iraq.
OK Red , post some positive things about Iraq . There was a topic about it a while ago , it turned out to be a very short topic .

Probably because of all the doom saying by you. ~;)



What a wonderful world you must live in.

Same world as you live in , but it isn't my countries military that are getting killed in a war that they cannot win yet cannot afford to lose , and it isn't my government pouring my tax money into the quicksand.

Lets see you seem to be spouting the same old line here. Guess what my postion on the occupation is very simple. We broke it - we got to fix it. How hard is that for you to understand that very simple concept. From what you have written - its a very difficult concept for you to fanthom and understand. Maybe instead of being sarcastic in every response you should try honest discourse - and maybe I will do the same in response. However if you notice I went this track off of a comment made by you.



.(In fact the cute whores are making money out of it , an advantage I suppose of prostituting themselves into the fringes of the coilition of the willing)
That is why you are so desperate to see it as positive , because to admit the failings would be to admit that your soldiers lives and your money are being wasted .

You haven't a clue do you, why I take the postion I do.

Again see the first comment. We broke it - we have to fix it. Why are you so desperate to show only the negative aspects of what is going on?

You discount the links from the Defense Department out of hand it seems - but don't want your comments discounted in the same way. Besides I am not desperate to see only the postive - I read about it in the links I have provided several times. Does it outweigh the negative - nope - but it shows a bigger picture view of what is actually happening verus the stuff that is available in the mainstream media outlets and the anti-war outlets.

Maybe its because I am playing your own game against you. It seems you like to play the devils advocate on other subjects - but don't like it being used unless your the one doing it.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Sure you can - what do you think Clinton was accused of? You might want to check on the defination of perjury. Here I will help you out since you seem to be unaware of the possiblity

I am well aware of the possibility, and thought of the same example.
Perjury is under oath. Had Clinton lied in front of the American people on TV, he would not have been charged... It's the same lie under oath that creates the possibility for perjury.
And there is a reason why perjury and lies are 2 different words. As far as I know, press conferences are not under oath, technically not a perjury. I don't think UK admnistration or US admnistration officials made any declaration about the war they could be charged with perjury.


Your getting warm - foolish incompetenet and wanting to believe the information on its face value without looking at other sources of information. Something many here are just of guilty of doing.

Looking yourself in a mirror?


I don't regret it at all - its called sacrasm. And many who opposed the war were not thinking about the current situation - they were only opposing it because they disagreed with the necessity of the conflict. Again hindsight is always 20/20.

And many who were opposing the war were thinking of the same situation. I remember writing about Algeria. I remember many ridiculising the notion of "welcoming with flowers".

There are reasons to disagree with the necesity of the conflict that can be that the conflict itself creates the condition for failure.

Looks like a case of people who were wrong are pissed at people who were right and calling for hindsight judgement.


So you would of supported allowing the sanctions to end, for Saddam to rebuild his WMD programs, and to continue to terrorize his own people?

You would of allowed his regime to remain unaccountable for the cease fire conditions that he violated - to include the returning and accounting of several thousand Kuwaiti citizens that were taken from their homes by Iraqi forces? And so many more little things that so many would just like to ignore.

How very noble of you.


(and yes I am being sacrastic once again)

Yes I would. I live in a world where many other atrocities are tolerated, and noone cares. See Chechnya, Darfour, Cuba, China/ Tibet, Rwanda before, etc, etc... Saddam was not the only one to torture its own people.

There are many wrongdoings. And sometimes fixing them just makes things worse. Is war the solution to make all that stop? Or is war triggering its own set of atrocities?
There are cases where I got no doubt I prefer war. There are cases where I wish we had declared war.
In our world, Irak was not the most pressing one.
Don't you know of any other options?

It's "sarcastic". Something that bitter people enjoy when they got nothing to do other than belittle others.

What is sad is.... Your personal motivations are not that far from many French lefty loonies that were supporting Saddam removal... Saddam or many other tyran. Time for fear to change side.
But they had a lot of doubts about that war, and the way UK and US admnistrations were doing it.
The cause might be juste, but it may not be worth a fight. The fight itself will corrupt the cause... In that case, and as much as it sucked for Koweitiis and Iraqiis, it was not worth it.
In 1991, it was worth it. Because violations were more severe, and because internation law was trampled. I was quite angry when we stopped short of removing Saddam back then.

There is something called "overfixing one's mistake"; blundering even more by trying to fix the initial problem. That's right where you are.

Louis,

[Redleg]

I am well aware of the possibility, and thought of the same example.
Perjury is under oath. Had Clinton lied in front of the American people on TV, he would not have been charged... It's the same lie under oath that creates the possibility for perjury.
And there is a reason why perjury and lies are 2 different words. As far as I know, press conferences are not under oath, technically not a perjury. I don't think UK admnistration or US admnistration officials made any declaration about the war they could be charged with perjury.

LOL looks like you didn't like the answer now does it. You claim that lies was not a crime - perjury shows that you are incorrect.



Looking yourself in a mirror?


Or was it your comments?




And many who were opposing the war were thinking of the same situation. I remember writing about Algeria. I remember many ridiculising the notion of "welcoming with flowers".


Yes indeed hindsight - no matter how you try to gloss it over.



There are reasons to disagree with the necesity of the conflict that can be that the conflict itself creates the condition for failure.


Maybe so - but that was not the initial arguement spewed forth by the anti-war crowd.



Looks like a case of people who were wrong are pissed at people who were right and calling for hindsight judgement.


Not at all - who's pissed not I - hindsight is just what it is hindsight



Yes I would. I live in a world where many other atrocities are tolerated, and noone cares. See Chechnya, Darfour, Cuba, China/ Tibet, Rwanda before, etc, etc... Saddam was not the only one to torture its own people.


So you would excuse them all. Again how very noble of you.



There are many wrongdoings. And sometimes fixing them just makes things worse. Is war the solution to make all that stop? Or is war triggering its own set of atrocities?

War is sometimes necessary - are you attempting to say Saddam honored every ceasefire condition?



There are cases where I got no doubt I prefer war. There are cases where I wish we had declared war.
In our world, Irak was not the most pressing one.
Don't you know of any other options?


14 years of faild diplomacy accounts for nothing it seems.



It's "sarcastic". Something that bitter people enjoy when they got nothing to do other than belittle others.

Yep and why I am using it in this arguement - because of your comments and more to the point Tribesman's. Sarcasm is what many here like to use - as a legimate form of arguement. Now it seems you don't like it for the same reason I don't like it as a form of arguement. However as long as some wish to use it as a legimate form of discussion - I will always use it back to counter their sarcasm arguement.



What is sad is.... Your personal motivations are not that far from many French lefty loonies that were supporting Saddam removal... Saddam or many other tyran. Time for fear to change side.

LOL - now that is funny - do you know what my personal motivations are? I doubt it very seriousily that you do.



But they had a lot of doubts about that war, and the way UK and US admnistrations were doing it.
The cause might be juste, but it may not be worth a fight. The fight itself will corrupt the cause... In that case, and as much as it sucked for Koweitiis and Iraqiis, it was not worth it.
In 1991, it was worth it. Because violations were more severe, and because internation law was trampled. I was quite angry when we stopped short of removing Saddam back then.

There is something called "overfixing one's mistake"; blundering even more by trying to fix the initial problem. That's right where you are.

Louis,

Then I would say that you should of responded this way in your first post - verus the comments that you initially made - then maybe I would not have been sarcastic.

[Aurelian]

About progress in Iraq:

I don't see any. Progress would be a weakening insurgency, a reasonable Iraqi government that had Shia, Sunnis and Kurds cooperating, and a new constitution that had some hope of being acceptable to the factions involved.

The constitution that will be up for a vote in the next couple of weeks was drafted in such a way that the Sunnis feel that their chief interests were ignored and violated. They had very little representation in the drafting process, and the Sunni delegates that were allowed to participate were soon shut out of the process because they raised objections.

The chief Sunni fear is that the constitution will allow power in Iraq to devolve to regional units. The Kurds and Shia will form regional units in the North and South, leaving a Sunni zone in the middle of the country. All of the oil wealth is in the non-Sunni parts of the country. Under the current constitutional plan, the Shia and Kurdish regional governments might very well keep their region's oil wealth for local use... rather than having it controlled and redistributed on a federal level. That would leave the Sunni area as a poor and landlocked zone within a Shia majority-controlled federal government.

It has to be remembered that not only are the Sunni the formerly dominant group in Iraq, but that they have been targeted by de-Baathification measures, and have taken the brunt of US counter-insurgency actions. They feel persecuted, and the new constitution has done nothing to calm their fears about their position in a new Iraq.

The Sunni are likely to come out in force against the constitution... but the government just moved the goalposts so that instead of being able to defeat the constitution with a 2/3 vote in three provinces, they now need 2/3 of registered voters in three provinces. That last minute rules change alone might be enough to ensure that the Sunnis don't accept the results of the referendum.

As if that wasn't bad enough, the Kurdish president of Iraq recently called on the Shia prime minister to resign. That represents a break between the Kurdish and Shiite tribal chiefs. The primary issue dividing them seems to be the status of Kirkuk - a rich oil center that the Kurds want, but that is divided between Kurdish and Shia Arab inhabitants.

The bottom line is that there are too many fault lines in Iraqi politics at the moment, and that those fault lines seem to be hardening and widening. US soldiers can run around expending ammunition and lives, but it is the political process that has to work before the situation will calm down.

As in most things, the current US leadership doesn't seem to have any clear idea of how to manage the situation. They've been pushing the Iraqi government hard, first for the elections in January, and then for a constitution and referendum; but the political foundations weren't in place to give those events the positive outcomes that they should have had. Instead, the slap-dash process excluded and alienated the Sunnis that are the foundation of the insurgency - and may have split the various Shia and Kurdish factions.

This is not to say that the country will necessarily erupt into full scale civil war. However, many analysts believe that Iraq is already undergoing a low intensity civil war as insurgents and death squads begin to target rival ethnic groups and leaders. Widespread political violence of that kind could make Iraq truly ungovernable.



By the way, here's a link to a very detailed and useful policy briefing on Iraq's constitutional process: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/getfile.cfm?id=1978&type=word&tid=3703&l=1

[Redleg]

Some progress is going on - regardless of the nay saying of some and the politicial failures that are evident.


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2005/20051001_2904.html


This is the first joint mission, planned and led by the 2nd Public Order Brigade. The Iraqis are out front," said Army Maj. Rick Ackerman of the Special Police Transition Team. "There was no American intervention - 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry provided an outer cordon and the Special Police Transition Team provided a liaison between coalition forces and the Public Order Brigade."

A site that has several different monthes of press releases and stories on the reconstruction effort

http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/rebuilding.html

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

While talking about the constitution process...

There is progress of some sort... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4309164.stm

At least it'll get voted... by absentees

Louis,

[Kraxis]

I'm sort of undecided about the progress. When you look at it with a fair and unbiased viewpoint it does look rather bad.

But when I think about it it seems to be at least changing, for the better or worse I don't know.

First the insurgets attacked the US forces directly. That was apparently not very effective as they stopped that in any large capacity quite fast.
Then they moved onto assasinations and abductions (not the 'nice' ones for money, but those we end up seeing on Al-Jazeera) as their main forms of attacks. That has been declining too. It seems the attacks are now concentrated on the new Iraqi police and military in the forms of recruits or transports, and attacks on congregations of Shia (take note of the big bully's words that he will drive them to war with attacks).

It looks like that every time the insurgets try another 'headline' strategy, one that involves lots of publicity and scaryness. And now it seemslike they have finally given in totally and are just targeting what they can with any effect. It is still visible and disruptive, but hopefully it is an indicator of a weakening position for them, or at least a beginning loss of belief in eventual victory.

[Tribesman]

A site that has several different monthes of press releases and stories on the reconstruction effort

Very good Red , my first posts say that they seem to be making up contradictory statements about the numbers and training abilities of Iraqi recruits , and you provide a link that contains (amongs other things) statements about the numbers and training of Iraqi recruits .~;) .
Some nice releases there on reconstruction , and there has been some progress , but some of those releases (especially concerning schools and healthcare) are exactly the same as were released 2 years ago i.e. plans to carry out X amount of work .
You will notice if you visit the POC site that they talk of money spent , projects approved for start up and already commenced, yet remain silent on the proportion of "money spent" that has dissappeared , and "projects approved" that they no longer have money for , or "already commenced" where the work hasn't commenced because the contractor did a bunk with the money or the lack of security has prevented actual commencement. You have to read the US general auditor report for that .

BTW I do like the release about the police getting radios for some of their police cars .....wow police cars with radios , what a novel concept , welcome to the 21st century~D

(take note of the big bully's words that he will drive them to war with attacks).

That is one of the more worrying developments Kraxis , though I think the changes in the voting rules will do just as much to sideline any moderate voices amongst the Sunni Arabs and push the extremists to the fore .

[Kraxis]

Yes, but so far the Sunni in the right as a group aren't the insurgents, they are to a great extent foreigners or west-haters (for a lack of a better word). There are of course Sunnis in there too (well most of the foreigners are actually Sunnis, just like 90% of all muslims), but they are fighting more from a anger point of view, rather than a 'war for the sake of war' point of view.
Thus one could argue we are talking about two different groupings, but for all we know they might atually be on friendly terms (my enemy's enemy is my friend).

All this could of course change if the Sunnis find themselves sidelined too much, and they rise up in significant numbers (we have to admit that there isn't likely to many thousands of insurgents now).

My point was that in terms of fightingthe insurgents it seems to be going fairly well. They have been forced to change their behaviour and pattern of attacks, seeking easier targets, targets that are less spectacular than what they did before. For a PR-savy group like Al-Zaqawi's it is interesting would you not think so?

[Redleg]

A site that has several different monthes of press releases and stories on the reconstruction effort

Very good Red , my first posts say that they seem to be making up contradictory statements about the numbers and training abilities of Iraqi recruits , and you provide a link that contains (amongs other things) statements about the numbers and training of Iraqi recruits .~;) .

Unlike you - I just provide the information - you can pick and chose your idealogue opinion based upon it.



Some nice releases there on reconstruction , and there has been some progress , but some of those releases (especially concerning schools and healthcare) are exactly the same as were released 2 years ago i.e. plans to carry out X amount of work .

Actually they are only similiar - some things are indeed different. However that would require you to actually think verus spouting idealogue opinion.



You will notice if you visit the POC site that they talk of money spent , projects approved for start up and already commenced, yet remain silent on the proportion of "money spent" that has dissappeared , and "projects approved" that they no longer have money for , or "already commenced" where the work hasn't commenced because the contractor did a bunk with the money or the lack of security has prevented actual commencement. You have to read the US general auditor report for that .

Again the site contains press releases - it means one must read and investigate and draw opinion from the documents. However don't let that interfer with your negative views and idealogue opinions.



BTW I do like the release about the police getting radios for some of their police cars .....wow police cars with radios , what a novel concept , welcome to the 21st century~D

Yep it seems that many nations don't have radio's in all of their police cars. ~:eek:

[Tribesman]

Kraxis , the estimate is still 18/20,000 , despite the killings and imprisonments the figure seems to remain fairly constant .
As for the "fighting from anger" thing , the changes to the voting process are very likely to increase that . It was originally formulated to ensure that all groupings had a voice . One grouping didn't like that voice and is now making moves to silence it .
If the prospect of making a political noise is taken away then it is highly likely that they will make a noise through other means .
For a PR savvy group like Zaqawis this could be a real bonus .
As for the spectaculars , yes they have decreased , but they are still attempting them , another attempt at the Green Zone yesterday , luckily the suicide bomber went off without penetrating the cordon .

[Tribesman]

Yep it seems that many nations don't have radio's in all of their police cars.
Yep it seems that many police forces are issued with brand new police cars by people who really want to make an efficient coordinated security apparatus , but neglect an important piece of apparatus that is vital for coordination .~:confused:

it means one must read and investigate and draw opinion from the documents. However don't let that interfer with your negative views and idealogue opinions.

Yes of course I never read , investigate and draw opinions on any documents Red . Just like I never read any of the links you posted or any links off of those links .
I make it all up as I go along out of thin air .

[Redleg]

Yep it seems that many nations don't have radio's in all of their police cars.
Yep it seems that many police forces are issued with brand new police cars by people who really want to make an efficient coordinated security apparatus , but neglect an important piece of apparatus that is vital for coordination .~:confused:

Obviousily they made an initial mistake in the purchase of the cars - not what you are trying to initially imply with your sarcasm.




it means one must read and investigate and draw opinion from the documents. However don't let that interfer with your negative views and idealogue opinions.

Yes of course I never read , investigate and draw opinions on any documents Red . Just like I never read any of the links you posted or any links off of those links .
I make it all up as I go along out of thin air .

Actually I was thinking more in the line that you pull it out of your rear end.. ~D

[Tribesman]

Obviousily they made an initial mistake in the purchase of the cars
Oh another mistake , how unusual .
Actually I was thinking more in the line that you pull it out of your rear end..
Actually I get most of the information from your government , so it must be your rear end .~;)

[Redleg]

Obviousily they made an initial mistake in the purchase of the cars
Oh another mistake , how unusual .

You should try purchasing items in mass some times - its not an easy task. Care to guess how many upgrades I had to do on new equipment to put in items that were not in the initial contract. Both in the military and civilian life.



Actually I was thinking more in the line that you pull it out of your rear end..
Actually I get most of the information from your government , so it must be your rear end .~;)
[/quote]

Can't be mine - I only read and make conclusions on factual information that I find. Only the government pulls it out of their rear-end to make the media happy. Grain of salt is what I take everything in with.

By the way if you haven't figured out by now - I have been messing with you for the most part because of your earlier comment. Devils advocate so to speak.

The adminstration has made a mess of the events from the conclusion of the invasion to now - but the soldiers on the ground are doing the best that they can with the limited resources that the government actually sends to them.

By the way - my bother is about to return to Iraq to train some more of the Iraqi security forces - so the progress is still ongoing even as we type.

Don't believe all the negative press - while most of its true - it does not paint the complete picture of what is going on.

[Tribesman]

Can't be mine
I meant your government , not you personally
The adminstration has made a mess of the events from the conclusion of the invasion to now
We differ there slightly , I think the mess started before the invasion .
Don't believe all the negative press
Don't believe most of the press anyway positive or negative , same with politicians and organisations .

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

LOL looks like you didn't like the answer now does it. You claim that lies was not a crime - perjury shows that you are incorrect.

Errr.... Perjury is perjury, and that's a crime. Lie is a lie. Noone is going to prosecute you for a lie, unless it's under oath. Then it's perjury. You don't see a difference?

The original point was that since noone convicted US administration officials of lying, then they had not lyed.
My answer was that, since US administration is not talking under oath, it's not a crime to lie, they can't be prosecuted for that.

Saying that there is no lie, because there is no conviction is a serious misunderstanding. It's odd: I suspect you know that, so I wonder why you make obviously wrong statement.

If all the press conferences were under oath, then yes, it would be a lot of fun, and I guess we would see a lot more prosecution ~D


the whole hindsight thing- Maybe so - but that was not the initial arguement spewed forth by the anti-war crowd.[

Had you been listening back then... I guess it was easier to believe that all war opponents were fitting the stereotypes you built for them.

The danger with caricaturing the people you oppose is that you end up believing the caricature, and not the actual arguments.


So you would excuse them all. Again how very noble of you.

I would certainly not excuse them all. The underlying point that you have so obviously missed is that this nobility seems to be very conveniently targetted.
We get noble in Iraq, but not with Russia or China. That's a very convenient kind of nobility. Noble with the weak, bargaining with the strong. Hypocrisy?

Would I allow those dictatorship to exist? Short of other acceptable alternatives, yes. War is rarely an acceptable alternative.
Do I excuse them? No.


War is sometimes necessary - are you attempting to say Saddam honored every ceasefire condition?

War is sometimes necessary. I don't think it was necessary in that case, even if Saddam was a treacherous bastard. The current situation is an expensive price to pay to punish someone who was not honoring all and every ceasefire conditions.

Louis,

[Adrian II]

Saying that there is no lie because there is no conviction is a serious misunderstanding.There has always been a lingering suspicion that the 'intelligence failures' with regard to Saddam's WMD, his ties to Al Qaida, etcetera were intentional lies. This is because such 'mistakes' were mainly promulgated by neoconservatives. Part of the creed of their founder Leo Strauss (+1973) is that democracies are inherently unable to produce and pursue a strategic vision of the world, and that democratic leaders and civil servants are required to lie from time to time if they want to pursue such a vision anyway. This was deemed an important strategem in the struggle with the Soviet Union, which the first generation neocons (Albert Wohlstetter, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle) claimed to have settled in the West's favour.

An important part of the vision of the 2nd generation, post-1989 neocons (Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Zalmay Khalilzad) was a regime-change in Iraq in order to remove the linch-pin from the Arab anti-Israel front. They had a vision in which a democratic, pro-American Iraq would take the lead both in a reconciliation with Israel and in democratic reform throughout the region.

I would not be surprised if it turns out that they have used their influence to spread - how shall I put it? - intentional mistakes about Saddams' activities in order to convince a wider public of the need to invade Saddam's country. I also strongly suspect that some of their economic 'expectations' - such as that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction out of its oil revenues, and that the post-Iraq world would be awash with Iraqi oil - were intended to convince the 'oil-wing' of the Republican party to support the war.

[Tribesman]

Good news , they have gone back to the old method of vote counting which should make some Sunni Arabs happy .
Bad news , that means the vote on the constitution may well end in rejection .

[Geoffrey S]

There has always been a lingering suspicion that the 'intelligence failures' with regard to Saddam's WMD, his ties to Al Qaida, etcetera were intentional lies.
Not the least because thus far any evidence to show the truth behind such claims is conveniently lacking, both before the war and (more suspiciously) after.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Not the least because thus far any evidence to show the truth behind such claims is conveniently lacking, both before the war and (more suspiciously) after.

Conveniently ~:confused:

You mean it's a conspiracy from anti war crowd? ~D

Louis,

[Redleg]

Errr.... Perjury is perjury, and that's a crime. Lie is a lie. Noone is going to prosecute you for a lie, unless it's under oath. Then it's perjury. You don't see a difference?

The original point was that since noone convicted US administration officials of lying, then they had not lyed.
My answer was that, since US administration is not talking under oath, it's not a crime to lie, they can't be prosecuted for that.

You stated you could not be prosecuted for a lie - that is incorrect you can.



Saying that there is no lie, because there is no conviction is a serious misunderstanding. It's odd: I suspect you know that, so I wonder why you make obviously wrong statement.

That is not what I stated - I said there is no evidence of a lie, just misinformed, incorrect, or proven to be wrong. Provide evidence of a lie - before making accusations of it.



If all the press conferences were under oath, then yes, it would be a lot of fun, and I guess we would see a lot more prosecution ~D


Again you would have to prove that they lied - a hard thing to do.



Had you been listening back then... I guess it was easier to believe that all war opponents were fitting the stereotypes you built for them.


I listened to them - and like I stated already the majority stated what I said they did.



The danger with caricaturing the people you oppose is that you end up believing the caricature, and not the actual arguments.


Well when its done in an arguement by one side - I believe its perfectly acceptable to do it back. If one doesn't like it being done in return - one should not attempt to do so themselves.



I would certainly not excuse them all. The underlying point that you have so obviously missed is that this nobility seems to be very conveniently targetted.
We get noble in Iraq, but not with Russia or China. That's a very convenient kind of nobility. Noble with the weak, bargaining with the strong. Hypocrisy?


And in this you would be incorrect. Iraq was a consistent issue since 1991. A war was fought in 1991 where Iraq promised to abide by a cease fire - which it failed to do. China and Russia are not under the same conditions - neither is North Korea, they have yet to violate the conditions of thier cease fire with the United States and South Korea. It seems your now attempting to lump them all together. Each nation mentioned have seperate situations then that of Iraq. Again Iraq failed to abide by a cease fire signed by both warring parties. No other nation falls within that same situation no matter how much some would like to try to make it so.



Would I allow those dictatorship to exist? Short of other acceptable alternatives, yes. War is rarely an acceptable alternative.

War is the last resort. Just like it was with Iraq. 12 years of failed diplomacy is often overlook in the anti-war crowd. Care to guess how many times 1st Cavarly Division deployed in the 90's to Kuwait to provide security and threat to Iraq? I will give you a guess its more then one.



Do I excuse them? No.


Well that is a good thing then.



War is sometimes necessary. I don't think it was necessary in that case, even if Saddam was a treacherous bastard. The current situation is an expensive price to pay to punish someone who was not honoring all and every ceasefire conditions.

Louis,

Again we differ in opinion.

[Redleg]

There has always been a lingering suspicion that the 'intelligence failures' with regard to Saddam's WMD, his ties to Al Qaida, etcetera were intentional lies. This is because such 'mistakes' were mainly promulgated by neoconservatives. Part of the creed of their founder Leo Strauss (+1973) is that democracies are inherently unable to produce and pursue a strategic vision of the world, and that democratic leaders and civil servants are required to lie from time to time if they want to pursue such a vision anyway. This was deemed an important strategem in the struggle with the Soviet Union, which the first generation neocons (Albert Wohlstetter, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle) claimed to have settled in the West's favour. suspicion is just that - its not proof nor does it support a claim of its an intentional lie.



An important part of the vision of the 2nd generation, post-1989 neocons (Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Zalmay Khalilzad) was a regime-change in Iraq in order to remove the linch-pin from the Arab anti-Israel front. They had a vision in which a democratic, pro-American Iraq would take the lead both in a reconciliation with Israel and in democratic reform throughout the region.

The horror of it all - again it does not prove a lie.



I would not be surprised if it turns out that they have used their influence to spread - how shall I put it? - intentional mistakes about Saddams' activities in order to convince a wider public of the need to invade Saddam's country. I also strongly suspect that some of their economic 'expectations' - such as that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction out of its oil revenues, and that the post-Iraq world would be awash with Iraqi oil - were intended to convince the 'oil-wing' of the Republican party to support the war.

Again does that fit into claiming that President Bush told a lie. It doesn't unless your attempting to say he told them to do it.

[Adrian II]

suspicion is just that - its not proof nor does it support a claim of its an intentional lieNor did I claim that. I merely explained what I think is the root of the suspicions with regard to these gentlemen.

[Geoffrey S]

Conveniently ~:confused:

You mean it's a conspiracy from anti war crowd? ~D

Not quite. Evidence is conveniently lacking after the war to prove the claims that WMDs were present in Iraq and the like, despite supposed clear evidence before the war.

I'm not really certain how to phrase it. Basically the US hasn't had to provide evidence to support their claims before the war, which is convenient for the Bush administartion; they made claims about Iraq, started a war after which they were supposed to find evidence to support those claims, and didn't find (or at least show) evidence to back up the earlier statements. Convenient for the Bush administration, don't you say?

Edit: why do people post before me?

[econ21]

Yes, but so far the Sunni in the right as a group aren't the insurgents, they are to a great extent foreigners or west-haters (for a lack of a better word). ...All this could of course change if the Sunnis find themselves sidelined too much, and they rise up in significant numbers (we have to admit that there isn't likely to many thousands of insurgents now).

My point was that in terms of fightingthe insurgents it seems to be going fairly well....

Kraxis, I'd be interested in any facts or statistics to support those claims. My perception is that the insurgency now is very significant - on average, a couple of dozen Iraqis seem to be being killed by insurgents each day. That requires thousands of insurgents - Iraqi intelligence estimates 200,000 with 40,000 hardcore fighters.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0122-08.htm

I haven't seen any figures on the proportion of foreigners in the insurgency but suspect it is small. Yes, there are groups of them but I suspect they would be slaughtered if they did not have the support of the Iraq communities in which they are hiding out.

[Redleg]

Not quite. Evidence is conveniently lacking after the war to prove the claims that WMDs were present in Iraq and the like, despite supposed clear evidence before the war.

I'm not really certain how to phrase it. Basically the US hasn't had to provide evidence to support their claims before the war, which is convenient for the Bush administartion; they made claims about Iraq, started a war after which they were supposed to find evidence to support those claims, and didn't find (or at least show) evidence to back up the earlier statements. Convenient for the Bush administration, don't you say?

Edit: why do people post before me?

The Duelfer Report clears some of that up - if one bothers to read the complete thing. It does not give a pass on the Intelligence Failures of the United States and Great Britian - but it explains why some things are confusing regarding the issue.

In short Duelfer concludes that given the methods used by Saddam and his regime they were attempting to protray that they still had some capablity. This was done primarily by denying inspectors access to all the documents that they were required to give to the inspectors.

Then one must understand that after 1992 - the United States Intelligence primarily focused on electronic gathering of intelligence - very little was done by human intelligence gathers. That has also been identified in several congressional reports if one bothers to look for it.

[Adrian II]

Edit: why do people post before me?Only an insolent Dutchmen would have the guts. I apologise!
:bow: ~:cool:

[yesdachi]

It is really not that surprising to me that we didn’t find any WMD. We basically told the world we were going there to look for them. If I saw on TV that the cops were coming to my house on a certain date to look for pirated MP3’s I would get rid of any I had (if I had any of course). Is this a bad analogy?

[Hurin_Rules]

Where the Bush administration clearly did lie is in claiming that they 'knew' Saddam had WMDs, that they knew where they were, and that this knowledge was certain. Cheny and Rumsfeld were particularly dishonest in this. At one point, they claimed that they 'knew' Saddam had WMDs and that they 'knew' where they were. That is a lie. They didn't know; they suspected. And that is therefore just as much a lie as any other.

If I claimed, "I know Redleg will agree with me here", that would be a lie. I may have my suspicions one way or another, but I really don't (and cannot) "know" how he will react. My statement is a lie. If it is a lie that leads to war, it is a reprehensible lie.

[Tribesman]

neither is North Korea, they have yet to violate the conditions of thier cease fire with the United States and South Korea.
Rubbish Red , there are numerous and continuing violations of the conditions . As there have been since the day it was signed .
Also it is not an agreement with the US and S.Korea , it is the UN and South Korea .

[Redleg]

neither is North Korea, they have yet to violate the conditions of thier cease fire with the United States and South Korea.
Rubbish Red , there are numerous and continuing violations of the conditions . As there have been since the day it was signed .


LOL - yes indeed rubbish it is - at least it shows that you might know the exact circumstances of the treaty. Care to state which parts of the cease fire are being violated on a continuing basis.



Also it is not an agreement with the US and S.Korea , it is the UN and South Korea .

It was the United Nations, North Korea and China. What nations are always involved in the talks between the two Koreas. Poor Tribesman you have fallen into a minor trap. Hell your history statement here is more incorrect then me stating that the United States by default is a signature nation on the cease fire. You got the country completely wrong. How funny is that. :dizzy2: ~:eek:


The Korea Times notes that, despite North Korea's insistence on a peace treaty, it has tried to exclude South Korea from peace talks in the past on the grounds that South Korea did not sign the 1953 armistice treaty. That treaty was signed by North Korea, China, and the US-led United Nations Command.

Care to guess what General signed it for the United Nations - and the United States. Care to guess why North Korea only wants to negotate with the United States for a peace treaty to end the conflict and not the United Nations or South Korea?


Edit:

The text of the Korean War Armistice argeement can be found here

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html

Notice how the United States General had his name written on the document.

[Redleg]

Where the Bush administration clearly did lie is in claiming that they 'knew' Saddam had WMDs, that they knew where they were, and that this knowledge was certain. Cheny and Rumsfeld were particularly dishonest in this. At one point, they claimed that they 'knew' Saddam had WMDs and that they 'knew' where they were. That is a lie. They didn't know; they suspected. And that is therefore just as much a lie as any other.

Now there we go get into the spefics of the allegation - not just throwing out buzz words because you don't agree with a politicial motiviated decision.

For instance I can rightfully state that in 1991 I know from experience that Saddam's Regime had WMD because I saw the international chemical markings on Mortar and Artillery rounds. I can truefully state that I had access to information in 1998-2000 that would lead me to conclude that the Iraqi Regime was with holding information and playing cat and mouse with the investigators. After that I could only draw conclusion based upon information provided soley from the media and the government. I could conclude safely from what I have read that Saddam's Regime was not being truthful in their reporting and destruction of programs involving WMD - and could even still say that - since that is exactly what Duelfer Report states.

Now when some states they know where they are - one must then really examine what is being stated and where they base their information off of. For instance did they know from human eyes seeing the physical evidence of the WMD - or were they basing their knowledge soley on the electronic intelligence that was gathered. In one you can actually get to proving that a lie was stated - with the other the adminstration can still claim that the intelligence was faultly and lead them to the wrong conclusion.

Lots of grey - which makes it very difficult to prove that an intentional lie was told verus just bad information.



If I claimed, "I know Redleg will agree with me here", that would be a lie. I may have my suspicions one way or another, but I really don't (and cannot) "know" how he will react. My statement is a lie. If it is a lie that leads to war, it is a reprehensible lie.

Its only an reprehensible lie if you were using the statement to promote a war that you intented to happen regardless of what the evidence really was. In other words if you understood at the time of making the statement that you were indeed making a false claim of truth.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I thought you were stating that there really was progress in Iraq, so I had to come see what you were talking about. Now that I see it's just one of Bush's 'who-haas' stating it, then I'm fine.

P.S: Now I know 'who-haas' is slang, but is that correctly spelled slang? If anyone knows what I'm trying to say that is...~D

[Tribesman]

Notice how the United States General had his name written on the document.

So they don't enforce the ceasefire in Korea as it is up to the UN to enforce it ?
Yet they decide to enforce it in Iraq even though it is up to the UN to enforce it ?
So that calls into question the whole legality of the invasion , which you repeatedly state is because of ceasefire violations , the coilition partners do not have that authority , the authortiy lies with the Security council .

[Redleg]

Notice how the United States General had his name written on the document.

So they don't enforce the ceasefire in Korea as it is up to the UN to enforce it ?

Care to explain why the United States still has troops in Korea and is still in charge of the United Nations Combined Command.



Yet they decide to enforce it in Iraq even though it is up to the UN to enforce it ?

Maybe its because the United Nations decided they no longer wanted to enforce the treaty?



So that calls into question the whole legality of the invasion , which you repeatedly state is because of ceasefire violations , the coilition partners do not have that authority , the authortiy lies with the Security council .

the United Nations does not surpass the soveriegnity of the nation. The initial cease fire was not a treaty by the United Nations to Iraq - but at the direction of President Bush in a confernce at the Safwon Airfield held by the United States and negotated by the United States to Iraq.
The United Nations confirmed the treaty 6 days latter with a resolution.

I should know - I pulled security detail at the airfield and watched them all come in. Did not see one United Nations flag or officer representing the United Nations. I saw generals for the United States, Britian, France, Saudia Arabia, and a few other countries - but no one was flying the United Nations flag - nor did I wear a United Nations flag on my uniform.

[Tribesman]

So the Safwan conference dealt with the ranges of ballistic missiles , nuclear and chemical developments and disclosure did it ?~;)

Maybe its because the United Nations decided they no longer wanted to enforce the treaty?

Excuse me Redleg , but the United States was in violation of its obligations under the treaty and had been for years .

Care to explain why the United States still has troops in Korea
Care to explain why it is not enforcing the terms of the ceasefire ?

I should know
Why ? Because you stood outside ?

[Redleg]

So the Safwan conference dealt with the ranges of ballistic missiles , nuclear and chemical developments and disclosure did it ?~;)

It dealt with the returning of the citizens of Kuwait that were removed by Iraq. It dealt with the return or accounting of all soldiers of taken by Iraq. It dealt with the reprations to Kuwait for the destruction by Iraq - and a host of other things. The violation of any of those conditions by the Hague Treaty of 1907 allows the United States to re-start hostilities.



Maybe its because the United Nations decided they no longer wanted to enforce the treaty?

Excuse me Redleg , but the United States was in violation of its obligations under the treaty and had been for years .

LOL - which treaty. The United States had no obligations under the cease fire treaty with Iraq - only Iraq had obligations. As for Korea - all parties have made several violations of the cease fire. And if either side wanted they would be justified under international law to restart the conflict. You might actually want to read Resolution 687 also. Here I will help you out there also.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm




Care to explain why the United States still has troops in Korea
Care to explain why it is not enforcing the terms of the ceasefire ?


Oh but they are - have you ever read the cease fire treaty? Be very careful in saying that the terms are not being enforced - if you don't know what the treaty actually states. A samble.


60. In order to insure the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, the military Commanders of both sides hereby recommend to the governments of the countries concerned on both sides that, within three (3) months after the Armistice Agreement is signed and becomes effective, a political conference of a higher level of both sides be held by representatives appointed respectively to settle through negotiation the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc.

This actually has been done several times since the armistice has been signed - however it not completely settled yet either.

Or how about this one


1. A military demarcation line shall be fixed and both sides shall withdraw two (2) kilometers from this line so as to establish a demilitarized zone between the opposing forces. A demilitarized zone shall be established as a buffer zone to prevent the occurrence of incidents which might lead to a resumption of hostilities.

Its definetly there - been there and seen the DMZ once or twice myself. Can you say the same.




I should know
Why ? Because you stood outside ?

Which is probably more then you did.

Again the Safwon ceasefire argeement was not the United Nations agreement - it was directed by President Bush to the Military Commanders and negotated with Iraq. The United Nations had absolutely no control on that one. Unless of course your wanting to stated that the United Nations is subordinate to the United States.

[Hurin_Rules]

Here's what I'm talking about:

http://proliberty.com/observer/20030706.htm

[Kraxis]

Kraxis, I'd be interested in any facts or statistics to support those claims. My perception is that the insurgency now is very significant - on average, a couple of dozen Iraqis seem to be being killed by insurgents each day. That requires thousands of insurgents - Iraqi intelligence estimates 200,000 with 40,000 hardcore fighters.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0122-08.htm

I haven't seen any figures on the proportion of foreigners in the insurgency but suspect it is small. Yes, there are groups of them but I suspect they would be slaughtered if they did not have the support of the Iraq communities in which they are hiding out.
If that is what they truly believe is the number, then I will bow my head. But to me it really isn't that hard to hit groups of civilians with bombs. That seems to be the preferred tactic now. Why? Because apparently the others were not effective enough, or perhaps downright bad.
Also what are the requirements to be considered an insurgent? Is it enough not to tell where they are? Or do you have to be directly part of it? If it is the first then most countries during the German occupation in WWII could top that, if it is the second then I wonder how it is that most countries (the same again) had figures running far far lower (most had but a few thousand active members, yes even in France).

40000 dedicated fighters could 'easily' ambush even American convoys. Yes I know that they can't all be in the same spot, but a few hundred can hide almost anywhere. And don't tell me that a semi-effective attack on an American convoy wouldn't be seen in the media as a daring attack or something like that. Like Tet it would be seen as an insurgent victory. So the gains are rather high even if most of the men involved get either killed or captured. A coup of PR to say the least.
For that very reason we should see failed attacks of fairly large scale once each month or so. It would be worth the attempts.

But it doesn't happen. Either that is because they don't have the numbers to keep up the effort, or because they know that they can't hide effectively (civilians ratting out on them).
Good or good really. Well, bad for the civilians as they are now the targets.


Perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way, and in fact the insurgents have seen a switch of the watch. One grouping trying to fight the Americans directly, taking their attention and getting more or less wiped out, and another grouping that has slowly emerged because less attention was paid towards them, and they are now waging a war on the rest of Iraq rather than the Americans themselves.

[Redleg]

Here's what I'm talking about:

http://proliberty.com/observer/20030706.htm

Yep some of the statements are damaging on their face after the fact.

[econ21]

Kraxis, I am not puzzled by the reluctance of the insurgents to attack US military convoys. They are hard targets and unlike the VC, the insurgents are not part of a very centralised system of command, so one attack would lead to a wipeout of the groups involved in the attack. Of course, there is a steady stream of US (and to a lesser extent UK) casualties, so they are targeting them but it seems that is mainly by low risk attacks such as roadside bombs. By contrast, hitting recruits to the Iraqi security forces seems a horribly effective strategy for destabilising Iraq, as does trying to incite sectarian conflict. It's textbook asymmetric conflict.

The analogy with the Tet offensive may be telling, as the (South) Vietnam conflict was fuelled by military support from outside (North Vietnam, ultimately USSR and China). My understanding is that offensive did great damage to the homegrown southern VC and afterward, fighters from the north had to take over much of the fighting. I don't see the equivalent of a North Vietnam, a USSR or a China in Iraq. Syria seems most often indicted, but I am sure it gives only a tiny fraction of what was given to the VC. Iran meddles, but is against the most active (Sunni) insurgents. I really doubt the individual Jihadis from Saudi Arabia etc could operate without local support from Iraqis. The insurgency is homegrown and is trying to build up its strength, while weakening that of the Iraqi government. Unfortunately, it seems to be doing rather well.

[Kraxis]

Well, my take is that the Sunni population for the most part is looking the other way, but aren't active. They might not exactly like what the insurgents do but at the same time they do not like what is going on the the government. And then they have that superiority complex, and can't stand that they are now equal to all others. So looking the other way seems a prfect way of supporiting yet not supporting the insugents.
Again I will refer to the European resistance movements. They were small and few, simply because most people chose to not se anything.
I lived close to one of the leaders of the Danish movement and I got a chance to talk with him when I was younger, before the old man died. Nice fellow...
He kept saying that the population in general was positive but didn't do anything actively, not even sheltering them. He also made certain that I remember that the population's part in the resistance was looking the other way.

I think we are seeing much the same here.

[Tribesman]

Again the Safwon ceasefire argeement was not the United Nations agreement - it was directed by President Bush to the Military Commanders and negotated with Iraq. The United Nations had absolutely no control on that one.
Ah yes silly me , I remember it now , how could I have forgotten .
Bush mentioned it regularly , as did Powell and Rummy , Cheney was always dropping that line into his speeches Tony Blair was a great one for mentioning it , all the governments , all the military , all the NGOs and international bodies and all the media were talking about the Safwan ceasefire , it was really a hot topic . You know , enforcing it , stopping non-compliance of it , abiding by its conditions , full dislosure under its obligations....not a mention of the UN resolution at all in the slightest .
Oh dear , is that the wrong way round Red .~:confused:
So once again , Rubbish ~:cheers:

Back to Korea
Care to state which parts of the cease fire are being violated on a continuing basis.

5,6,7,8,9,12,13(abcdef),14,15,16,17,18 ....want to carry on?
50 years of failed diplomacy , they have WMDs and have threatened to turn America into a sea of fire , where is this oh so important pre-emptive invasion then .

[Redleg]

Again the Safwon ceasefire argeement was not the United Nations agreement - it was directed by President Bush to the Military Commanders and negotated with Iraq. The United Nations had absolutely no control on that one.
Ah yes silly me , I remember it now , how could I have forgotten .
Bush mentioned it regularly , as did Powell and Rummy , Cheney was always dropping that line into his speeches Tony Blair was a great one for mentioning it , all the governments , all the military , all the NGOs and international bodies and all the media were talking about the Safwan ceasefire , it was really a hot topic . You know , enforcing it , stopping non-compliance of it , abiding by its conditions , full dislosure under its obligations....not a mention of the UN resolution at all in the slightest .
Oh dear , is that the wrong way round Red .~:confused:
So once again , Rubbish ~:cheers:



Again its not rubbish since the United Nations does not supercede the sovernity of any nation. No wonder why your so confused.



Back to Korea
Care to state which parts of the cease fire are being violated on a continuing basis.

5,6,7,8,9,12,13(abcdef),14,15,16,17,18 ....want to carry on?
50 years of failed diplomacy , they have WMDs and have threatened to turn America into a sea of fire , where is this oh so important pre-emptive invasion then .

Oh you make it so easy - your wanting to compare the two situations like they are the one and the same. The two conflicts are not the same - But don't let that confuse you or distract from your arguement.

For one, WMD is not mentioned in the cease fire agreement with North Korea - nor was North Korea told in the armistice that it could not arm itself. Those issues are seperate negotations between the three nations involved in signing the armistice and South Korea which did not sign the armistice. Then one must look at South Korea - a nation that did not sign the armistice - and could attack North Korea anytime it so desires. Hince the some of the conditions speficied in the armistice only are revelant between North Korean, China, and the United States. While violations by the North Koreans into South Korea violate the armistice, the failure of the South Korean government to sign the armistice has to be taken into consideration. There is an ongoing peace settlement conference in which the 6 nation talks are part of, which is the negotation that matters between the two Koreas at this time.

Then one must look at who the cease fire was signed with also - Invading North Korea gives China the same ability as the United States. You pretend to understand international treaties but statements like the above lead me to conclude something else.

Sure the United States could use the violations of the Armistice to justify an invasion of North Korea if that is what is required. But why should we - the United States periodically buys off the NOrth Korea


5. The waters of the Han River Estuary shall be open to civil shipping of both sides wherever one bank is controlled by one side and the other bank is controlled by the other side. The Military Armistice Commission shall prescribe rules for the shipping in that part of the Han River Estuary indicated on the attached map. Civil shipping of each side shall have unrestricted access to the land under the military control of that side.

Are you attempting to say that the Han River is not open to civil shipping? Since that would run counter to all current reports coming out of Korea that I have access to. Has the Han River periodically been shut down to shipping - now that would indeed be a true statement. But who shuts the Han River down - its not the United States and its often not the North Koreans.

[Tribesman]

Are you attempting to say that the Han River is not open to civil shipping?
When was the last gunfight in the estuary ? 6 years ago or is there another more recent , two vessels were sunk in that incident , so no it is not open .
It is not open as it is disputed , or more precisely islands in the estuary and their surrounding waters are disputed .

Again its not rubbish since the United Nations does not supercede the sovernity of any nation.
The United States and all the other members of the coilition were operating under UN authority , if they are under something then that takes precedence, hence all the referrals to the UN resolutions by your government , not to the conference .

[Tribesman]

Place your bets for a succesful Iraq .
Show your confidence and make a fortune~;)
http://www.betoniraq.com/

[Redleg]

Are you attempting to say that the Han River is not open to civil shipping?
When was the last gunfight in the estuary ? 6 years ago or is there another more recent , two vessels were sunk in that incident , so no it is not open .
It is not open as it is disputed , or more precisely islands in the estuary and their surrounding waters are disputed .

Disputed does not negate the ability for civil shipping to use the water ways. Do they use it at risk sometimes - sure it is, but again do you care to explain why shipping is still going on throught the Han River Tributary system. I have been on the Han River back in 1994-1995 and watched civil shipping go up and down the river. Your mixing your apples and oranges together.



Again its not rubbish since the United Nations does not supercede the sovernity of any nation.
The United States and all the other members of the coilition were operating under UN authority , if they are under something then that takes precedence, hence all the referrals to the UN resolutions by your government , not to the conference .

The Safwon conference and the initial cease fire agreement that was signed at that location is what all the subsequent UN resolutions are based upon, that ceasefire agreement ordered not by the United Nations but President Bush Sr. President Bush also refered to about 10 other points of violations that are all based upon that cease fire agreement. Again claims of violation of international law seem to want to negate that and the Hague Treaty of 1907.

Again the United Nations does not supercede a nations sovereignty . No matter how much you wish it to - it does not.

But all this is a distraction from the progress in Iraq - the legality of the issue will not be settled in a discussion between you and I.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Posts: 7,008

Okay, Redleg...

How is that humanly possible? LOL, nice contribution!~:cheers:

[Tribesman]

The Safwon conference and the initial cease fire agreement that was signed at that location is what all the subsequent UN resolutions are based upon,
So the resolutions supercede the conference , America amongst others passed the resolutions which replaced the original , which means the original is null and void .

Disputed does not negate the ability for civil shipping to use the water ways.
It does when they are fired upon and sunk .
Civil shipping of each side shall have unrestricted access to the land under the military control of that side.


Shooting , sinking and blockading does not=unresricted access does it:dizzy2:

[Redleg]

The Safwon conference and the initial cease fire agreement that was signed at that location is what all the subsequent UN resolutions are based upon,
So the resolutions supercede the conference , America amongst others passed the resolutions which replaced the original , which means the original is null and void .

Actually it could or could not depending on the legality of the initial cease fire agreement and the subsequent resolutions by the United Nations. When the resolutions follow the exact measures from the orginal agreement - it does not make the initial agreement null and void - it adds on to the conditions by another body. Again your argueing that the United Nations supercedes the sovereignty of the nations that signed the charter. Show me where in the charter of the United Nations supercedes the sovereignty of my nation.



Disputed does not negate the ability for civil shipping to use the water ways.
It does when they are fired upon and sunk .
Civil shipping of each side shall have unrestricted access to the land under the military control of that side.


Shooting , sinking and blockading does not=unresricted access does it:dizzy2:

And neither is it what you initially attempted to state either. So periodically shooting over disputed border does not necessarily equate to a violation of the armistice when you add one additional fact which again has been mentioned but ignored by you. Plus one that I haven't mentioned but I will let you figure it out. THe clue is that the dispute is not over the banks of the River but something else.

[Redleg]

Posts: 7,008

Okay, Redleg...

How is that humanly possible? LOL, nice contribution!~:cheers:


The Han River is navigatable in many places near the coast - all it takes is a boat with a propeller to go up the river - or many strong backs with oars to row the boat up. Not all that hard if you think about it.

Civilians traveled up and down the river during my tour in Korea.

[Kraxis]

Ehmm am I missing your point here Redleg, or didn't you get that he asked for your ability to post so many posts?~:confused:

[Redleg]

Ehmm am I missing your point here Redleg, or didn't you get that he asked for your ability to post so many posts?~:confused:

Must of not gotten his jest.

~:cool: