General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2296206

    What’s going to happen in Iraq now that all

    Locked

    by hal 9000 ·

    The aid agencies have withdrawn?

    So far most of the people have been on the side of the “Liberators” as we see them but we now have the problem of no international aid agencies being left in Iraq and there is nothing like hunger to drive people into action.

    Till now there has only been a minority of people who have been actively campaining against our forces but then there where a lot of aid agencies in the country handing out food and other aid but with these organisations coming under direct attack and withdrawing, it at the very least is going to make things harder for our troops who are serving in the area.

    They will now have to take on the role of aid workers, police, troops protecting the general population, and whatever else is necessary most of which they where never trained for. This is a major problem as we are constantly asking our troops to perform things that they have never been trained for. Right now the element who has still been fighting seems to becoming more organised and with their cowardly attacks on “soft targets” like the aid agencies they have now placed our troops in a position that isn’t all that great.

    Currentlt there is a lack of troops to protect these agencies and there certianly are not the troop numbers there to take over the job that these agencies where performing. Until the infrastructure is rebuilt and kept working there are going to be major problems in Iraq with the general population becoming more disenfranchised every day and eventually if things continue along this path they will be forced out of hunger to raise up and throw out the people who where sent in there to help them.

    This is a very important lesson that we should have learnt from WW11 where invading most of Europe was realitively easy for the Germans but they had to tie up more and more of their front line troops just to keep the peace in the ocpuied lands.

    They failed miseriable and this is something that I for one don’t want to see happen to our boys & girls in Iraq. They already have a hard enough job to do and this is only going to make things harder for them.

    So any ideas of how we can help to improve the situation in Iraq so it doesn’t blow up into an all out war again soon?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2676213

      I’ve got it

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to What’s going to happen in Iraq now that all

      The USA needs to speak with other countries such as Germany, France, Canada and Australia and try to reach some sort of uh…..Alliance. this Alliance, we’ll call it Allied forces for now, would enable the US military to enter a war or conflict such as this as a united force. By all working together tha objectives should be easy enough to achieve! Now I know it a bit far fetched to think that you can “partner” with like minded countries against terrorists bt you never know. ‘Allied Forces’, it’s got a ring to it, I wonder if it will stick?

      As for being hungry, the Iraqis are used to it. The USA took so long to ‘inspect’ imports to Iraq that the people never saw squat for a very long time, another reason they and Saddam were so pissed at the USA.

      I still like the idea of an “Allied Invasion” though I think it has definite potential, the only thing I could see screwing it up is if one country went against the wishes of the ‘Allied forces’, this would result in an unprepared and poorly equipped invasion without any financial or economic supoprt. I can’t see anyone REALLY being dumb enough to do that though it wouldn’t make sense, but you never know.

      OM

      • #2676201

        How about NATO?

        by lesdabney67 ·

        In reply to I’ve got it

        Or…I don’t know…the UN. Oh, wait…never mind…

    • #2676185

      Winning Hearts and Minds

      by road-dog ·

      In reply to What’s going to happen in Iraq now that all

      There is an upside to the situation, that being that the minority that has chased off the relief agencies will be blamed for the hardships caused by it.

      I’ve read interviews where Iraqis blame the UN, Germany, and France for failure to act against Saddam. The Sunni minority is less than 1/5 of the Iraqi population. I would expect that the Shiites will clean house in Tikrit and the Sunni areas of Baghdad where these attacks originate before acting against the US in a big way.

      Don’t overestimate these attacks. They are fewer by half since the US began hitting back harder. Medical supplies and food will flow. Every relief column attacked by the Baathists will only harden the general population against them.

      Remember that most of the country hates Saddam in a big way, the US pulling out is an invitation to have him back in power….

      • #2676182

        Recent reports

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Winning Hearts and Minds

        Also state that MANY Iraqis who wer once FOR the US occupation are quickly turning against it as more and more innocent casualties of war are shown each day. these people are extremely mad by teh US’s actions and feel that the US soldiers are not the ever so powerful team of highly trained soldiers they are said to be. Many have died unwarranted deaths, not just cross fire or being in the wrong place at the wrong time but in a cowboy’s and indians fashion. They say that many US troops are starting to buckle due to the impromptu car bombings and killngs of thier comrades and as a result are being quite hasty and unwarranted in thier retaliation on innocents.

        With more and more Iraqi citizens who were once for the US now turning AGAINST the US, I fear that you conclusion is premature. this isn’t based on WHAT happened or how peolpe USED to feel, it is a new feeling by the Iraqi citizens based on what HAS been done so far and what IS happening now. This isn’t the pretty cleanup that america had assured Iraq it would be.

        It’s a HUGE mess of a conflict with no end in sight, even though C. Powell stated it would take no more than 6 months at most.

        I don’t know what you’ve seen lately bt from my perspective, there has been little or no improvement to the way of life for these people who you apparently went to liberate. they don’t believe it and neither do I. Actions speak louder than words unfortunately for GWB.

        • #2675514

          Heh, I couldn’t resist

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Recent reports

          “Also state that MANY Iraqis who wer once FOR the US occupation are quickly turning against it as more and more innocent casualties of war are shown each day. these people are extremely mad by teh US’s actions and feel that the US soldiers are not the ever so powerful team of highly trained soldiers they are said to be. Many have died unwarranted deaths, not just cross fire or being in the wrong place at the wrong time but in a cowboy’s and indians fashion. They say that many US troops are starting to buckle due to the impromptu car bombings and killngs of thier comrades and as a result are being quite hasty and unwarranted in thier retaliation on innocents.”

          “I don’t know what you’ve seen lately bt from my perspective, there has been little or no improvement to the way of life for these people who you apparently went to liberate.”

          Umm..yeah… so like do you have proof of that above statement or is this more insane babble?

        • #2675489

          uh, yeah

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Heh, I couldn’t resist

          N/a N/a
          Executive IS/IT Management (CIO, CTO)
          MY OWN
          NJ

          “well gee wiz…
          …then what would be the point of me answering any questions since you expect my age no less to be of false information?”

          And yet you expect to be listened to , understood, agreed with, repected and given credibility.

          “CIO/CTO” “gee whiz” “Like” “buahahahahahaha”

          Right.

        • #2675488

          Exactly

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to uh, yeah

          You don’t believe my profile, why would you believe anything else?

        • #2675485

          And who said

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to uh, yeah

          anyting about “listened to , understood, agreed with, repected and given credibility.”? Stop assuming stuff junior and just answer one of the many questions I asked.

        • #2675478

          Not an assumption

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And who said

          I don’t assume your character, that is impossible on the Internet. You could be a 13 year old girl for all I know. What you can do though is get a fair estimate of someone’s thought process. You have shown yourself to be uninterested in the topic of discussion at all and simply want to disagree. Now even if you gave YOUR reason for feeling that way, it would be OK. Instead you just expect me to defend a statement without knowing what or why I’m defending it.

          Ex.1)
          BILLY) The world is flat.
          WILLY) what are you taking about you idiot, hahahahhahaha! The world’s not FLAT!

          Exampls 2)
          BILLY) The world is flat.
          WILLY) No it isn’t. I have a globe and it’s round. Here’s a picture of Earth from outer space.

          Get it?

          In the firat example, Billy said something that Willy didn’t agree with. Willy just laughed at Billy and called silly. I don’t think Billy was convinced that the world is round, he just thinks Willy is silly too.

          Willy wasn’t very good at expressing his opinions was he!

          In example 2) Billy said to Willy that the world was flat. Willy told Billy that he was silly, the world was round and then told him about his globe while showing Billy a picture from OUTERSPACE!

          Now I think Willy did a good job of expressing his opinion and Billy is much smarter now that he knows the world is ROUND after all!

          So are you Silly Willy or SMART BILLY or what?

        • #2675475

          Scenario3

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Not an assumption

          “Exampls 2)
          BILLY) The world is flat.
          WILLY) No it isn’t. I have a globe and it’s round. Here’s a picture of Earth from outer space”

          But Billy says) ‘I think you need to brush you r teeth for bedtime now, mom will come and read you a story soon.’ ‘Get your head out of your ass and open your eyes.’

          and Billy continues) uh, yeah
          N/a N/a
          Executive IS/IT Management (CIO, CTO)
          MY OWN
          NJ

          “well gee wiz…
          …then what would be the point of me answering any questions since you expect my age no less to be of false information?”

          And yet you expect to be listened to , understood, agreed with, repected and given credibility.

          “CIO/CTO” “gee whiz” “Like” “buahahahahahaha”

          Right.

          Willy says) So is Earth round or Flat?

          and Billy continues) If you have SPECIFIC questions you want me to support, please ask.

          Willy asks again) So is Earth round or Flat?

          and willy is still waiting for a response for all that question and many others he asked in the previous posts. Note to the blind: Its a question if it has >>> ? <<<< that symbol at the end of a sentence.

        • #2675463

          With that said

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Not an assumption

          First reponse:

          My statement-“I don’t know what you’ve seen lately bt from my perspective, there has been little or no improvement to the way of life for these people who you apparently went to liberate.”

          Your question- Umm..yeah… so like do you have proof of that above statement or is this more insane babble?

          As I said I lost the original link but this should help give you the idea Bush is losing fans.

          <"Middle East newspapers said that Bush's stealth visit to Baghdad was a media stunt which showed his determination to win both the war in Iraq and re-election despite setbacks on the ground and in opinion polls. Arab and Iranian commentators saw the visit's secrecy was a sign of the uncertain American grip on Iraq. ... European newspapers which did comment were mostly sceptical of Bush's motives, with the US presidential election now less than 12 months away. Ordinary Iraqis at teashops have been asking why he didn't take advantage of his trip to see firsthand how his rule has treated them." >

          http://tinyurl.com/wywh

          +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
          This is the result of your successful war in Afghanistan where you stopped the last terrorist regime.

          “WASHINGTON ? A top counterterrorism official says al-Qaeda operatives dropped plans this year for several small attacks in the USA to focus on plotting a “more spectacular” assault comparable to the Sept. 11 attacks.

          The U.S. counterterrorism official, who has access to all intelligence on the terrorist group, told USA TODAY this week that officials have no specific evidence to indicate how or when al-Qaeda might try to launch a massive strike on U.S. soil.

          But, the official said, interviews with al-Qaeda detainees, intercepts of communications from suspected operatives and other sources have yielded evidence that Osama bin Laden’s network still has a command structure and a determination to launch an attack that might rival the suicide hijackings

          http://tinyurl.com/wyc7

          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          Response to last post.

          You stated:
          “Note to the blind: Its a question if it has >>> ? <<<< that symbol at the end of a sentence." Fair enough. You asked: "Willy says) So is Earth round or Flat?" >>Round http://tinyurl.com/wyyi

          “Willy asks again) So is Earth round or Flat?”

          >>Round http://tinyurl.com/wyyi
          +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
          In another post you asked:
          “And those true objectives were??? OOOOH, oil??”

          >>Yes, although Tony Blair was mainly focused on the Liberation of Iraqis since he had been partitioned by 350,000 Iraqi exiles in England who plead : “We are praying you will stick to your resolve to liberate our country from a dictatorial tyranny over 30 years which has caused the deaths of nearly 2 million men and women , sons and daughters.

          We have suffered enough. As you know, in all these years Saddam Hussein has destroyed the very fabric of our society. On humanitarian grounds alone, your continued leadership and support is critical. ”

          George W Bush claimed a breach of the dal-purpose goods senctions. He then gave several public speeches to warn of Saddams use of WMD on Americans to justify the war.

          His Primary objective was NOT liberating anyone. It was a war for oil, justified by instilling fear and then further justified by Liberation plans.

          +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          That was fun, now for your part of the excercise.

          When I said:
          “This action just reinforces MY conclusions that this war is unjustified as a solo effort. The US Army was unprepared for the conflict and that other country’s should have been involved even if it took months for them to see reason for action. I job worth doing is a job wirth doing right they say.”

          You stated:
          >> Um yeah, other countries were involved, England, Austria, Australia. Plus not to mention other countries that currently hold peace keeping troops.

          Support it.

          +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          You said
          “America is patient, war which began on 9/11 will continue as before, with one dictator gone, probably several more to go, :).”

          One dictator gone? optimistic to say the least. Prove he’s gone. After reading this of course
          http://tinyurl.com/wyc7

          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          Other sttements of yours:

          “Which brings me to my next point, Canada nor England or for that matter other countries didn’t lose 3000 people. ” 300,000 maybe but not 3000.

          “Of all the countries and nation-states in the history of the world noone has had more power than the US and noone has done more good (yes thats relative we will get to it) for the world than US.”

          “Of course you are insignificant, after US was forced to come into WWII save your arse (otherwise you’d be speaking German today my friend :P) what happens when US needed and wanted its allies to follow its lead in going after the terrorists?? Yeah, exactly. Thanks for your help, no really.” – Prove it

          “This is exactly what happened pre WWII, Hitler was given anything he wanted, noone really stood up to him, and peace came in the form of a German flag. ” Think hard about that one, swap Bush with Hitler, you follow him without question as he decieves you into supporting an invasion!

          “its the same crap, the same jealousy of US, its wealth, and its power. Oh yeah, by the way, we don’t give a damn on how you think we should act. Why should we? when you don’t when we ask you to?”

          +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          I guess that’s all from you…unless you’ve got answers of course…with support.

          OzMedia

        • #2675474

          If you bothered to do a little research …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Heh, I couldn’t resist

          you would readily ascertain that a greater number of Iraqi military and civilians have died as a result of the war (not including Kurdish victims of gas experiments), than ever were assassinated by Saddam Hussein.

          Why don’t you conduct a seance and see how much these victims appreciate being “liberated?”

          Do some reading and keep your garrulous mouth shut until you have something vaguely realistic to say.

          The average Iraqi is obviously worse off now than under Hussein. Nobody is happy about this fact, but then the majority of nations on the UN Security council strongly advised against the invasion.

          Unfortunately, while the USA with its principal ally, Britain, (and some token help from Australia) have caused this disruption, it is now left to the compassion of countries who never wanted to be involved in the first place to bear some of the burden for humanitarian reasons.

        • #2676941

          Having bothered to do a little research.

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to If you bothered to do a little research …

          I am unable to validate your numbers regarding assassinations by Saddam, but I suspect the difference is less than you suppose. However, if you take all deaths to unnatural causes during Saddam?s regime and compare these to the tally of Iraqi military and civilian deaths since the coalition forces went into Iraq I am sure you will find Saddam out killed Iraqis by a significant factor.

          You suggested a little research and so I did. I suggest to others http://tinyurl.com/91p6 as a starting point since they have a links page as well. Their position is clearly stated ? the coalition forces must assume responsibility for all casualties including Iraqi on Iraqi casualties as the occupying force.

          ?The Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations, to which the US and UK are signatories, place the responsibility for ensuring public order and protecting the civilian population from violence on the occupying powers. UN Resolution 1483, which recognized the US/UK as the de facto occupying authority in Iraq, clearly bound them to these duties.?

          Applying the same measurement parameters, how many deaths must the Allies accept responsibility for once they landed in North Africa, Italy, or Normandy? Applying the same logic, we must ignore the atrocities caused by the Fascists in Europe and place blame on the Allied powers beginning with their first arrival on the Continent.

          The arguments are not new. Many of the same arguments were raised in the 1930?s against any American involvement in the affairs of Europe and Asia. England and France were reluctant to oppose Germany during the same period, even to extending Germany a time frame to leave Poland. I suppose that had any of what became the Allied forces had taken action earlier and opposed the spread of Fascism we might have prevented WWII but would still beating up on those governments for their audacity.

          Keep in mind how much better off those Europeans would have been if not subjected to the horrors of Allied military actions.

          I don?t doubt your sincerity, only your logic. The choices were to continue sanctions until Saddam changed, drop sanctions regardless of Saddam and hope he behaved, or remove Saddam. I fail to see a historical precedent to indicate the first two choices were viable.

        • #2676909

          A fair argument …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Having bothered to do a little research.

          Actual figures of direct and indirect deaths by Hussein will never be known.

          My statement was based on the estimated number of actual casualities in this war (some tens of thousands) as compared with the relatively small number of actual assassinations exposed in some mass graves.

          However, there will obviously be many more casualties on both sides before, if indeed ever, a stable self government is established in Iraq.

          Other reports which I won’t list here show that Bush and Co are doing everything possible to keep Americans back home from being aware of how bad the situation is in Iraq.

          I consider it a very cyncial act on his part to have Thanksgiving in Baghdad with a small number of US personnel, while at the same time making no effort to view the situation first-hand when he had this opportunity. He is encouraging Americans to die for a cause, of which the primary reasons had little to do with removing Hussein.

        • #2684817

          Bush’s trip showed guts

          by bcoffman ·

          In reply to A fair argument …

          I was happy to see the president’s secret entry into Bagdad. I believe the troops are encouraged by his courage–as in his co-piloting of a jet onto a carrier (last year I believe).

          War is never pretty, and sometimes necessary. The press/administrations have always tried to shield us from the horrors–that is done for several reasons: security, decency, etc. Yes, mistakes can be covered as well. The mistakes in my opinion are well publicized–it is never completely controlled.

          When people are killed, I know it is serious–I don’t have to see them blown apart to appreciate the gravity of the situation. I think anti-Busher’s would just love to have more graphic photos to increase the fear factor, and to possibly cause more people to vote against Bush in the next election.

          I really don’t believe it is all about oil. If that were the case, then right now when we have total control of the resources of Iraq, why aren’t we taking it all?

    • #2675602

      Issues

      by oldefar ·

      In reply to What’s going to happen in Iraq now that all

      You raise some interesting questions, Colin.

      The occupying force is perhaps a bad comparison since the objectives are significantly different. In WWII the Germans were conquering territory with no intent to leave while the coalition forces in Iraq are removing an evil regime with the intent to leave ASAP once the Iraqis are able to establish self rule. A better comparison may be that of the allied forces that freed European countries as Germany was defeated.

      So objective one becomes completing the elimination of Saddam’s regime. Dissolving his forces rather than facing defeat by a superior military force was a smart tactic and enabled a continuing guerrella campaign. Targeting the Saddam leadership may be the best tactic to oppose this.

      Objective two is to relieve suffering from want of water, food, shelter, and medical facilities for the Iraqi people. This is part logistics and part manpower. Seems to me that a huge untapped source of manpower has been overlooked – those who opposed toppling Saddam because of the impact to the Iraqi people. The UN should recruit these people to take an active role in achieving their stated goals.

      A third objective involves changing a mind set. At times I see where some Iraqi and many other world citizens have this concept that the coallition can “provide” a new government, peace, and security to the Iraqi people. Impossible. Only the Iraqi people can secure freedom, prosperity, and security for themselves. Coallition forces can only provide opportunity.

      The guerella attacks have caused some set back with the pull back of aide agency personnel, but I think there are enough people willing to risk their own safety to help the Iraqi people to counter this IF the UN asks.

      • #2675592

        Side bar

        by oldefar ·

        In reply to Issues

        There is an interesting perspective to the Middle East at http://tinyurl.com/pov4

        It is possible for a diverse cultural, ethnic, and political state to live in relative peace and harmony. This has been demonstrated many times among the western democracies and elsewhere. Here in the US we have roughly half the population unhappy with whatever party is in power – wanting more or less government, more or less personal freedom and responsibilty, more or less local versus central control, etc. For some, such as the Amish, there is a wide disconnect at all times. For others, the disconnect is temporary and small. Somehow, most of us manage to get along.

        • #2675559

          Quite interesting Oldefar

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Side bar

          Amir Taheri is a pro-America campaigner for Iraq. A little background check shows that he is completely FOR the removal of Saddam and Liberation of the people. Anyone AGAINST this movement would be insane or should be reviewed for terrorist connections.

          I read an atricle he’d writen about how an elderly lady was shunned from Anti-War demonstrations in England. These demonstrations also included a sign up sheet for people willing to actas a human shield to protect Saddams military installations.

          The concept that this may in turn reach through Arab states and into Africa as a joint cease of arms is ideal but pretty optimistic, no matter how wonderful it would be.

          It seems to me that there is EXTREME suport for and EXTREME support against the war but few are seeing middle ground. Very few people addressing how removal of Saddam is imperative but not in this fashion. I know I’ve bene tagged as Anti-American, anti-Bush or Anti-War, the Anti-Bush I can live with buy I don’t thik I dislike Americans, I’m just tired of the tyrannical war mongering attitudes from the USA. I feel that Saddam should be completely wiped out as any terrorist organization should. I feel for the people of Iraq who have lost loved ones in order for the US to introduce liberty in Iraq.

          I just don’t think it was taken care of in the best way that America could. It’s been VERY unprofessional, there haqve been too many ooops mistakes, there is too much focus on how America is saving the world. I think the big heads of America will just get bigger and push others even farther away than they already are now.

          This is not a trumphant victory, one day it nmay seem so, if after many years of occupation and attempted Liberation the USA succeeds, it will again see this entire mess as a victory not a mistake.

          I have no doubt that America will succeed in the goal of eventually helping these repressed people and for that I’m sure much credit is due to those who have hung in there and fought for these peoples freedoms.

          I am still completely disgusted at how this war’s true objectives have been fogged over to reveal the “rainbows and roses” campaign launched by G.W.Bush and not his true objectives.

          I think if he wants to regain SOME form of credibility, he will then have to spend a few more billion to save all the other countries repressed by tyranical regimes. this of course will NEVER happen in my lifetime anyway, perhaps another president somewhere down the road will actually find a way to justify military spending and be up front about the true objectives of free a country’s paeople. Until then, we just have to hope this war one day ends, as no end is currently in sight that would be amicable with te intent.

        • #2675513

          Couldn’t resist this one too.

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Quite interesting Oldefar

          “This is not a trumphant victory, one day it nmay seem so, if after many years of occupation and attempted Liberation the USA succeeds, it will again see this entire mess as a victory not a mistake.”

          Well, when we succeed in the liberation and their country is rebuilt, of course we will see this as a victory, please enlighten me on why we would see this as a mistake? America is patient, war which began on 9/11 will continue as before, with one dictator gone, probably several more to go, :).

          I am still completely disgusted at how this war’s true objectives have been fogged over to reveal the “rainbows and roses” campaign launched by G.W.Bush and not his true objectives.

          And those true objectives were??? OOOOH, oil?? Heh, a brutal dictator taken out of power was one of the objectives which you seemed to have forgotten. Just because you thought it was ‘rainbows and roses’ campaign didn’t mean America did nor did GWB.

        • #2675507

          You’ve missed the whole objective

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Couldn’t resist this one too.

          My post was to outline the fact that this has been a longer war than predicted already and has NO end in sight as of now. Colin Powell had once stated that this will last 5 -6 months. GWB has more recently said that he sees no end in sight yet but will eventually achieve his goals.

          This war has NOT unfolded as planned.

          This war COULD have been much quicker and successful with the cooperation of allied forces, whos wishes were completely ignored as Bush acted prematurely. The USA is now left with policing this area, which they’ve proven thay have no abiity or training to do.

          Yes, this war was over oil. How can you not agree with that?

          This is always touted on the news as ANOTHER success and ANOTHER great thing we did was, “roses and rainbows”, not reality.

          Now you can blindly follow the leader but I feel that you have no relavent information to offer, you have no input at all that makes any sense or explains yur feelings toward the war.

          You act, sound and react as a child.

          As for my comments above, yes I do have sources to prove my statement, as always.

          You however don’t warrant my time on this issue, if you disbelieve my statements, it is up to YOU to provide contrary information, not for me to support my comments.

        • #2675500

          And those objectives were?

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to You’ve missed the whole objective

          Exactly what were those objectives? Let me have em Tomas! How quickly did you want the war and reconstruction/rebuilding done? Tomorrow? On your birthday?

          “Yes, this war was over oil. How can you not agree with that?”

          See my post about the Alaskan Oil reserves :).

          “You act, sound and react as a child”

          Maybe I am a child!, Buahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!. (thats insane peals of laughter coming from every direction for the verbally challenged :).

          “As for my comments above, yes I do have sources to prove my statement, as always.

          You however don’t warrant my time on this issue, if you disbelieve my statements, it is up to YOU to provide contrary information, not for me to support my comments”

          Well you ask for proof everytime anyone posts something or you had in other threads, *GASP*, I am asking you for yours.

        • #2675491

          Generally

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And those objectives were?

          I do generally post links to support my statements

          You on the other hand have NEVER had a relevant thought that you’ve shared here other than simply laughing at others comments.

          You disallow many statements but have yet to show a single shred of contrary evidence, you do not warrant me searching again for my supporting documents. You challenged my post, therefore it is YOUR responsibilty to provide obejective proof.

          Innocent until proven guilty if that’s easier to understand.

          Your post about the Alaskan oil reserves is as inaccurate as those who say the US only imports 5% of it’s oil. It may only get 5% from Iraq, but I have shown how they are buying millions of barrels from other sources who are inturn receiving THAT oil fromIraq under GWB’s Oil-for-food campaign.

          You have no substance with which to challenge my statements. You said I ask others for proof, this is true (becuase that’s aparently how this specific forum works)they then provide contrary proof to go against my statement.

          If you disagree with what is said, you should say WHY you disagree and then SHOW why you disagree.

          I get the feeling you disagree because you use chat room comments in all your posts.

          What you haven’t one is say WHAT you disbelieve, WHY you disbelieve and then provide contrary proof.

          Get to work (that’s what you have to do when you grow up, may as well start now)

        • #2675487

          More hot air

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to And those objectives were?

          Still haven’t answered my questions bucko! :). Oh wait, wait, you answered ONE!. Yeehaw! Whats the world coming to?

        • #2686854

          So, where does that oil come from?

          by mrbill- ·

          In reply to And those objectives were?

          To help clear up who the US imports oil from. Approximately 60% of US oil needs come from import.

          ?Canada and Mexico ranked second and third, respectively, in terms of U.S. oil imports for June 2003; only Saudi Arabia (2 million barrels per day) was a bigger supplier, beating Canada by just 66,000 barrels per day. Overall, 42.5 percent of U.S. oil imports come from OPEC producers?members Venezuela, Nigeria, and Algeria round out the top six exporters to the United States??

          From the article:
          ?Why Not Import More Non-OPEC Oil??
          By Brendan I. Koerner
          Posted Friday, Sept. 26, 2003, at 3:53 PM PT
          http://slate.msn.com/id/2088974/

          For August 2003 US oil imports were from the following:

          Canada 16.5%
          Venezuela 12.8%
          Mexico 12.7%
          Saudi Arabia 11.9%
          Nigeria 7.7%
          Angola 3.7%
          Algeria 3.7%
          Russia 2.9%
          UK 2.7%
          Virgin Islands 2.7%
          Others 22.1%

          During Jan-Aug 03 Iraq was delivering 3.2% of the Imported oil.

          (These figures are from the American Petroleum Institute)

          Where is the alleged US dependence on Iraqi oil? Canada is getting the most out of the war situation. How much of the oil revenues are going to fund their social, govt and health care programs.

        • #2686837

          Canadian Oil

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to And those objectives were?

          Where does Canada get the oil that it imports into the US? I never thought of the neighbor to the north as a particularly huge oil producing nation…

          Do they export to anywhere else?

        • #2686828

          Canada’s Oil and Natural Gas production

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And those objectives were?

          First we must look at the obvious. Alaska is a MAJOR region for oil production. Alaska is a tiny state that is paractically joined to Western Canada. To think that Canadians would have missed an oil desposit so large would be absurd.

          “The Canadian oil industry is concentrated in western Canada. During the past 20 years, crude oil production has been in the range of 500-700 million barrels per year. The decline in the production of commercial light oil has been offset by oil sands production, which has doubled over the past decade. “- http://tinyurl.com/x8ez

          Canada supplies the Western States of America with enourmous amounts of Natural Gas, Oil and Hydro Electric power.

          As for Americas measly consumption of Iraq’s Oil, this is grossly underestimated. Iraq has been exporting it’s oil under the oil-for-food prgoram for some time now. These smaller countries are in turn selling it to America, many of which were in your list as US suppliers. America cannot buy Iraqi oil FROM Iraq, so they buy it from a middle man, Russia, Suadi Arabia etc. Saddam has been using an Old Saudi pipeline, ordered colsed by BUSH to sideline oil through Saudi Arabia, an American supplier.

          Even though America has been using third parties to but it’s oil, it has been well aware that this is Iraqi oil that has been cut off as an export to America.

          This is all outlined in the Report to Congress I’ve posted before that really shows the true US intent behind this unjustified war.
          Links to the Report to Congress and others outlining America’s true intent and benefits of this war are all all explained in the Discussion (Trading With (And Stealing From) “the Enemy”).

          Along with links to sources of conclusions.

        • #2686791

          Mr. Bill

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And those objectives were?

          You sources may need a little more review.

          http://tinyurl.com/x8u9

          Shows who Brendan Koerner really is, he ahs some interesting points but I would second guess his motives.

        • #2686783

          tinyurl!!!!……………………

          by mrbill- ·

          In reply to And those objectives were?

          Oz, the tinyurl sites are blocked where I work. If I remember when I get home I’ll look it up. Thanks

          But the info from API should be a credible source. I bounced the info off a “friend” of mine who has some “inside” info. They said it should be golden. But they are looking into it, time permitting.

        • #2686763

          Sorry, my mistake

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And those objectives were?

          The point is not that API reports are incorrect, they are showing that the USA buys oil from other countries as opposed to Iraq. The only thing is, USA can’t buy Iraq oil, Saddam already blocked that avenue for BUSH. The Oil-for-food program allows OTHERS to buy Iraqi oil though. These country’s are Americas oil suppliers, therefore selling Iraqi oil to the USA. Direct purchase is out so in comes the middle man. This has been fine and dandy up until now as BUSH was gaining benefit of the supply. When these other countris started to import “dual purpose” goods, which can include just about ANYTHING, the USA started to hold off on inspections thus starving the Iraqi’s by blocking Food imports that were under the oil-for-food program. So America was fuelling this trading yet trying to ban it, or at least control it too.

          here’s some links FULL links for you. Don’t forget the %20’s.

          Original thread “Trading With (And Stealing From)the Enemy”
          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=3&threadID=142607&start=0

          OUTLINE:
          http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Chin112102/chin112102.html

          Report for Congress (found in US Embassy files):
          http://www.usembassy.fi/pdfiles/RL30472.pdf

          There were a few others I found but the big deal that prompted me to explore was local employees of a Vancouver Hospital who walked out due to invetsments with Texaco/Chevron that had gone awry and left Texaco looking for millions in return from GWB.

          Try a few simple searches for Texaco/Chevron Iraqi Oil.

        • #2685819

          Oil – Oil Everywhere – lets move to Nigro

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to And those objectives were?

          First – lets look at BP Oil, if I recall the last report I seen was BP was over 70% Middle east oil, with 20 some percent North Atlantic… The question is why – does it cost $1.49 US for a gallon of BP Gas – but the poor Brit’s are paying 5.35 pounds per Royal gallon…

          Also – why isn’t the world moveing faster to alternative fuels like Hygo or Nigro – Fuel Cells – Did the German that designed the disel engine make it to run on Peanut oil??? – and not fossil fuel?

          The us auto makers are looking at them all but projects are 15 years before they become common. Hey Guy – Pick up the speed… Me thinks theres a little – cohoots between big oil and automobile industry…

        • #2685809

          automotive and oil industries in cahoots?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And those objectives were?

          Nah Jim, that would be wrong and BUSH wouldn’t condone it, oh no he’s the oil tycoon, maybe he would! I mean why would two of the largest commercial forces on earth possibly combine? That wouldn’t make sense, or would it? hmmmm!

          I think you’re seeing something here now.

        • #2685804

          Actually

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And those objectives were?

          Even though you have a point, automobile manufacturers make more money on parts and service than selling cars. the newer engines would reduce friction and wear, therefore making them last longer. Parts sales will drop and manufacturers that are already feeling the competitive crunch will suffer. Your President’s family sells oil, you can see them no weekedns with thier little stand on the corner selling it by the glass, they wouldn’t benefir from alternate fuels. Canada is providing a lot natural gas and hydro electric power to the US. What would the prro BUSH family do if oil wasn’t the simgle most needed commodity in the USA?

          Next thing you know you’d all be speakign French! (not that we do ).

      • #2675558

        Ok Ken I’ll agree that the German activities

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Issues

        Where a bad analogy but then again I could only think of Starlin here and he did something totally different with his scorched earth policy.

        What is happening here is that the combatents have removed themselved enmass from the fielod of conflict and are roamiung around in small groups amoungst the civilian population wreaking havock. They haven’t only set their goals on the foregin aid workers but the UN deligation and far more importantly the main infracture in Iraq like Electricity/water and food by removing these necessary items they are effectively still holding the people of Iraq hostage while at the same time the allied troops are trying to protect them from these guerela taticts.

        There is a problem here with a lot of country to cover and nowhere enough personal to do the job properly but more importantly the wrong people in place anyway. The miletary was never intended to be a “Police Force” but we are continually expecting them to perform outside of their previous roles but not providing the necessary training for this.

        I can remember a training excersise where a group of solders where patroling an area when two men ran towards them threw a hand grenade and ran off. The troops returned fire after the handgrenade was thrown and where rapped over the nuckles for this breack of protocol. Apparently they could shoot to kill as these mem approched them because they where a “Potential” threat but the moment that the handgrenade was thrown they where no longer a threat and should have been ignored. Well this is great for a Police force but this was never what the army or whoever was trained for.

        While I do agree with what you posted above and I do not for a single minute believe that any troops will stay there indefentatly there needs to be someone else doing the day to day things that are required to keep the peace and guarding things like electrical instalations, oil lines and water pipes as without these there will never be any advancment in Iraq and what is worse if the people do not see any hope of improvment they will revolt with the right agitation so that they can get their freedom as they will perceive that the liberators who where sent there to free them from Saddam Hussain have become the new oppressors. While some things are necessary they can not be allowed to carry on for too ong and this is where the main problems arise in the fact that the militery just are not the right people to perform this action as they where never expected in their initial training to perform such operations ever.

        While I fully agree with what you have said about the only real change coming from the people of Iraq they do seem to have a small problem as those who have now steped forward to take the reings of power to improve the lot of the adverage person are now themselves targets from the minority who want things to return to the way that they where and even if they did manage to catch Saddam Hussain there would be someone equially as nasty to replace him This is one of the sad facts of life in this part of the world.

        Whatever eventually happens here it will be a long slow process but it is necessary to keep the general citizens happy or then the real problems will occure.

        But actually from memory the first of these “Soft Targets” was the UN station in Iraq and that has now been evacuted and like the rest of these places now stands in partial ruins empty.

        • #2675552

          Good point Colin

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Ok Ken I’ll agree that the German activities

          I agree Colin that these troops have NOT been trained in peace keeping or policing missions as they are soldiers tayght to fight.

          I have a bit of a problem excusing :
          “The troops returned fire after the handgrenade was thrown and where rapped over the nuckles for this breack of protocol.”

          That’s something I learned as a very young teenager. Once the threat is removed you no longer have just cause to use force upon the individual. It’s not brain surgery, it’s common sense and I am surprised to think that this isn’t taught in BASIC combat training. You’d think that while issuing a weapon or instructing on the proper use of the firearm that someone would explain what deadly force is and how and when to use it.
          I’ve recently used the same argument in the discussion regarding workplace abuse, one person said if the lady got shoved, she should shove him back or at least learn self sefense. the only problem is, once you are SHOVEd you are no longer in danger by the person. You have been pusjed away, the threat is no longer there. To retaliate would entail YOU approaching the person and inflicting an attack, therefore making HIM the victim.

          I think I was 14 when I first learned this, to see a soldier acting this way tells me one of two things.
          1) His training was inadequate and a review into BASIC conduct needs to performed.

          2) He WAS full aware of the consequences, his commanding officer HAD taught him this and yet the cowboty syndrome has taken over. Many have accused the US Army of inappropriate behaviour during this conflict, many say weapons are constantly discharged without just cause. the USA has paid a lot of money out in retribution for lives lost or innocents injured by just such actions.

          If you’re going to BE the world police, LEARN how to be the world police.

          This action just reinforces MY conclusions that this war is unjustified as a solo effort. The US Army was unprepared for the conflict and that other country’s should have been involved even if it took months for them to see reason for action. I job worth doing is a job wirth doing right they say.

          This is a half assed attempt at gaining the popularity of American voters, it is a way for BUSH to demonstrate PURE capilatist actions, for the military to spend a whack of money and therefore justify Iraq’s paying them back, gee they have no money, but they HAVE got oil.
          It’s a single handed and bullying attempt by George W. Bush to get what he wants, not the Iraqi people. however they will one day have peace and therefore will overlook the losses, just as America already has.

          By calling this a war for peace, Bush has justified the body bags returning to America each day filled with sons and daughters of PROUD US citizens.

        • #2675506

          Same here.

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Good point Colin

          “This is a half assed attempt at gaining the popularity of American voters, it is a way for BUSH to demonstrate PURE capilatist actions, for the military to spend a whack of money and therefore justify Iraq’s paying them back, gee they have no money, but they HAVE got oil.
          It’s a single handed and bullying attempt by George W. Bush to get what he wants, not the Iraqi people. however they will one day have peace and therefore will overlook the losses, just as America already has”

          Eh, we really don’t need Iraq’s oil, we have Alaskan oil reserves that are still untapped. Why didn’t we go after those? becuase of the stupid environmentalists who don’t trust modern technology which will keep the environment safe while tapping that source, *sigh*. And what are pure “CAPITALIST” actions? Do you even know what capitalism is? or do you recongnize it as simply the enemy since you are soo far left and anti-american?

          “This action just reinforces MY conclusions that this war is unjustified as a solo effort. The US Army was unprepared for the conflict and that other country’s should have been involved even if it took months for them to see reason for action. I job worth doing is a job wirth doing right they say.”

          Um yeah, other countries were involved, England, Austria, Australia. Plus not to mention other countries that currently hold peace keeping troops.

          “Once the threat is removed you no longer have just cause to use force upon the individual. It’s not brain surgery, it’s common sense and I am surprised to think that this isn’t taught in BASIC combat training.”

          So how do you determine when the threat is removed? We take a poll of all the nearby wildlife and plants and ask their opinions perhaps? And how do you know that WASN’T taught in basic training? Have you ever attended US Army’s basic training? I would love to see proof.

          “He WAS full aware of the consequences, his commanding officer HAD taught him this and yet the cowboty syndrome has taken over. Many have accused the US Army of inappropriate behaviour during this conflict, many say weapons are constantly discharged without just cause. the USA has paid a lot of money out in retribution for lives lost or innocents injured by just such actions.”

          And do you have more proof of these things you so ignorantly speak off or are you quoting the “many” again?

          “one person said if the lady got shoved, she should shove him back or at least learn self sefense. the only problem is, once you are SHOVEd you are no longer in danger by the person. You have been pusjed away, the threat is no longer there. To retaliate would entail YOU approaching the person and inflicting an attack, therefore making HIM the victim.”

          Wow really? So after a women has been raped or even shoved if she went to the police and pressed charges he is the vicitim?? Interesting. If she hits him back he is still the vicitim even though HE was the istigator?? So basically she should do nothing? stand there and take it like a good girl huh? You scum bag!!! STFU. You are insulting the alphabet with your stupidity.

        • #2675504

          Read before you speak

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Same here.

          Instead of just reciting CNN and FOX news, why don’t you actually research OUTSIDE of your little box. Your internal information is censored by the White House (yes, I can link to that report too). Do you really expect to hear the truth from a country that at first completely banned photos depicting dead soldiers, then allowed SOME photos to be shown as long as the soldier faces or deformity from attacks weren’t shown. They then allowed video (again after White House approval) and now are contending with reporters who have cameras phones and wotrking on legislation to govern that as well.

          How loong will it take for yuo to at least open your mind to the outside world? You don’t have to agree or disagree with the information but at least become somewhat open minded and derive your own conclusions based on a culmination of vared facts instead of relying on local reports.

          When you have the ability to hold a somewhat educated discussion based on fact and reality, you will warrant my time. Until then you are simply wasting your time as you have NO credibility whatsoever.

        • #2675503

          moreso

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Read before you speak

          Can you tell me just how many Austrian troops are in baghdad today? Australian? English even?

          Please post the link to support it too.

          afghanistan and Baghdad are different places in the world. Even though neither are in the USA, it doesn’t mean that the rest of the world is one lump country.

          I’m curious to find out just how old you really are, you don’t have to answer that and if you do I wouldn’t expect it to be true.

        • #2675501

          well gee wiz…

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to moreso

          …then what would be the point of me answering any questions since you expect my age no less to be of false information? Oh by the way you still haven’t posted any answers to my questions just more alphabet soup.

        • #2675490

          It doesn’t matter

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to moreso

          Your age is irrelevant if you can at least act somewhat grown up. It doesn’t matter if you know something or not, if you have a question people will help, if you don’t understand something people will help, when you simply don’t understand what you’re reading or what the current estate of world affairs is, People will help.

          What you have done here is just make noise. You’ve had no expressed objection, you’ve offered no opinion, you’ce just made noise.

          If you refuse to grow up, just a little even, I won’t feelobligated to respond.

          If you have SPECIFIC questions you want me to support, please ask.

          Don’t just shout and expect action, that doesn’t work with me.

        • #2675486

          yeah we know

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to moreso

          Everyone else is a kid if they argue against you, or state an opinion, or post something, but you on the other hand are all grown up…weeeeeeeeeeee!!!. In the famous and comical words of some of the looney toon characters, “I am only Tree and half years old”, hehehehehehehe!!!.

        • #2675448

          For “Pure Capalist Actions” you should

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Same here.

          Watch a movie carred Soylent Green.

          After this you can come back and argue you’re case.

        • #2676897

          I couldn’t atch a movie like that

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to For “Pure Capalist Actions” you should

          BECASUE IT”S MADE OUT OF PEEEEEOPLE !!

        • #2676884

          OZ but it does show the

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I couldn’t atch a movie like that

          Morality of BIG BUSINES doesn’t it?

        • #2675447

          Incidently about that woman

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Same here.

          If she was to fight back she at the very least would face dispilenary action or worse still dismissial.

          As she has alread stated the company where she works has a Zero Tolerance Policy so by retaliting she runs the risk of lossing her job or worse still having lost her job then facing police action when the person who started the whole thing makes a complaint. WHile this is not FAIR it is life in the big bad world outside the doors and this is something where you need to tread carefully.

          I recently saw a case of where someone who was attrached in their own home at some time around 2 am stood trial for aqgrivated assult and lost which resulted in them ending up in jail because there was no other option because the Government had passed mandatory penetilities for people who commited these offences. Incidently the person who broke in was also granted a hudge payout for injuries suffered.

          To take this kind of attitude into the work place you are only asking for trouble and possibily making it impossible to ever get another job ever again because you where dismissed for fighting. While I personally do not agree with this it is always best to remain the “Victum” in cases like what was mentioned rather than run the risk of becoming labled as the aggressor. There are always other alternatives and this woman should have stood up for herself rather than just take it without complaint. She has other options even if she did not want to make an official report/complaint, she needs to learn that she is responsible for what happens to her instead of believing that others will protect her from her own stupidity, but more to the point I think that it shows just how badly she was raised from a child as she seems unwilling or unable to assert herself in any manner.

        • #2675484

          Some Excellent Points

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Ok Ken I’ll agree that the German activities

          On the use of military personnel as police, I have never observed a senior military officer tagged to take on a role as police chief or commissioner. While it is typical for police to recruit former military personnel as candidates for police training, it is never as a pure lateral move unless the military service was as a trained military policeman. For the USAF, this training occurs following basic training and used to last 12 weeks I believe. Investigative training was an advanced school, as were other police specialties. So we agree these are two different disciplines with different objectives and approaches. It is foolish to think that because both are armed the roles are interchangeable. I don’t believe the coallition leaders are guilty of not seeing the difference.

          We also agree on the tactics used by former Saddam loyalists and the impact. By operating in close proximity to innocent civilians they turn overwhelming force into a liability. This would be a good environment for our special commando type forces to operate rather than our standard infantry and armoured units. I suspect limited resources are a problem, and that efforts are underway to increase the number of commando trained personnel. The problem is that the commando is not simply a training issue, but a mindset issue, and increasing quantity risks decreasing quality.

          I am more optimistic regarding the people of Iraq and their ability to step up to their responsibility. Time will tell if that optimism is justified or not.

        • #2675449

          Hopefully you’re correct

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Some Excellent Points

          But I have seen numerious cases where troops have been sent in to “Keep The Peace” like in Timor and the Soloman Islands. Both of these cases required Police rather than Army but because these Police where not available the army was used and more and more we are seeing the army being used for roles outside their brief which was to protect their country.

          There is also another problem with the cammando and that is that this group of people rely very heavily on intelegance of a high level to get their planed objectives done. Unfortantly currently in Iraq this isn’t available as the people are far more scared of the forces trying to cripple the Forces who stated aim is to bring peace and understanding to Iraq that they are of our troops. After all they have had 30 years to understand what will happen if they do not do as they are told and so far they have no experience about what will happen to them if they don’t co-operate with the for want of a better term “Occupining Forces.”

          While I hope for the best with what has been going on since the Cesation of Hostilities it is getting increasingly harder to see this happening.

          Yes I do believe that the people of Iraq want something better but at the same time I’m a realist they know exactly what will happen to them if they don’t do as they are told by forces still loyal to Saddam Hussain after all he wasn’t the first person to rule a country in this area in this manner he has just been the lattest and with the history over there it is hard to see any improvments comming in the “Short Term” but requiring many generations to change the mind set of the people over there in Iraq and then there is the question of are other countries in that region willing to put up with a Democratic Country next door. As currently there are none who have this form of Government, it is just possible that we are doing their dirty work and setting up Iraq for an invasion after we leave the area and it may very well prove impossible to do anything about this after the event as the people that we are currently relying upon will become our enemies in any form of action that could come. Every Country in this area has a very long history of switching sides when it is in their interests to do so.

        • #2676930

          MP – MOS of the future…

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Hopefully you’re correct

          Since the role of the military has evolved toward peacekeeping in a big way, a possible answer is to create a couple of divisions of military policemen, as opposed to companies as is the model now. These MPs would be tasked with rear echelon defense and civil order to stabilize and pacify areas outside the forward edge of battle area. These troops would probably need basic tactical training that is defense-centric and basic knowledge of those most common elements of the law.

          I suspect that the majority of this force would also include individuals who are adept at recruiting, selecting, and training indigenous para-military police to maintain order while nation building is going on.

          National Guardsmen would probably fit the bill best, as they could also be used to fill the need for additional police in the event of civil disorder and disaster at home.

        • #2676923

          Excellent Idea

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to MP – MOS of the future…

          I especially like the idea of utilizing Guardsmen for this since it better reflects their more typical tasking when called up by the governors for domestic duty.

          I also believe that the transition from policing to soldiering is an easier one than the reverse.

        • #2676896

          Policing in the military

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to MP – MOS of the future…

          Canada’s RCMP are a national police force that hes spawned from the Royal Imperial Army that first policed Canada.

          The relationship with RCMP and it’s military roots ensure that Canadian soldiers are trained in psychology and peace keeping as well as combat training and advvanced recon. Canada currently has most of it’s available force in Afghanistan on various peace keeping and policing missions.

          Due to the haste of the Iraqi invasion, Canada was unable and unwilling to simply pull out of afghanistan in order to move into Iraq. The recon would have undoubtedly saved lives from ambush and initial hostility ni Baghdad. The Peace Keepers would have been very useful in today’s Iraq as they would relieve a large number of American troops so they couls focus on the mission ans terror at hand.

          I think if the US forces plan on continuing this type of solo action without the needed support, they should also have the training and be prepared to follow through fully instead of attacking and being unprepared for the repercussions afterwards.

          The war is not unjust to me as much is it is premature, poorly executed and hastily arranged without the support of the Allied forces, who have proven thier importance time and time again.

      • #2685973

        Will democracy make a difference?

        by hereinoz ·

        In reply to Issues

        And do the people want democracy, or do they want absolute power?

        The problem that we are facing here, Ken, is that there really isn’t an Iraq. It is really four different groups which were pulled together by (I think) the British, to create Iraq around the borders of the ancient land of the Tigris and Euphrates.

        Whereas we ( in Australia) would be prepared to elect a government, and accept the result, even if my “side” lost, I severely doubt that the average Iraqi would be prepared to do that. Basically what we have there now are four sides who all want to win – not possible.

        It saddens me, and call me a pessimist if you like, but knowing the psyche of the people from that area, I just don’t think democracy is going to work in what we now call Iraq. One of the reasons that Saddam Hussein was such a mongrel was that essentially 70% of the people wanted to kill him, and it would have been the same for any ruler from any of the four groups.

        Even with an elected government, I doubt the ability of the people to accept it, and thus Iraq seems destined to slip into brutal and murdurous civil war, until… a strong and determined individual is able to stand with enough strength on his side and tell the other warring factions “do as I say or I will kill you” Just like Saddam Hussein did.

        It is, unfortunately, the way in that area, and it is for that reason that I always opposed the war – not because it was wrong, because it was indeed undertaken with noble sentiments, but because it wasn’t going to change anything, Iraq will be the same, just the people holding the guns will be different.

        Alan

        • #2685940

          Frst – establish a secure environment

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Will democracy make a difference?

          First there needs to be a secure enviornment – then you let them create their own constitution or rules of government – whether it be democray or whatever. Ensure the first election or however they want to choose a governing body goes according to their selection.

          If western style of government is forced on them it will surely die before starting. They need to select and form their own government as they wish it – once whether that is a muslin government or whatever …

          Then – we leave ….

        • #2685918

          So true

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Frst – establish a secure environment

          The US in its own Declaration of Independence states:

          “it is the Right of the People to…institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

          Democracy is merely one such available approach.

        • #2686372

          I agree

          by hereinoz ·

          In reply to Frst – establish a secure environment

          I once more find myself agreeing with you Jim, but I must confess to feeling a tiny bit of despair wondering whether the environment in that area will ever be secure until some Saddam II stands up and represses everyone again.

          I just feel there is too much factional angst to ever get a secure, peaceful and co-operative situation.

          In this instance, I desperately hope I am wrong. We can but wait and see.

          Cheers,

          Alan

        • #2673234

          let’s try it

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Will democracy make a difference?

          Perhaps democracy will collapse, as it has in many other places. But we don’t know that it will. Among Iraq’s fairly near neighbors, Iran, Yemen and Turkey are all democracies, however much we dislike the results. After WW II the Germans looked at the constitution of their First Republic and considered how it had allowed decay to the Third Realm. They wrote the constituion of the Second Republic correcting to make a repetition unlikely. But Iraq has never been a democracy, so we don’t know in advance what aspects of its society might lead to decay of democracy. We might think that ethnic and confessional rivalry rather than ideology and pragmatism might dominate voting, and the answer to that is to invite the Socialist International, the Liberal International and the International Union of Democrats to set up offices to encourage ideological parties. But there is no need for a new constitution: take the one Saddam used, delete the undemocratic parts, and do the same with the election law: then hold elections and see where the dice fall. If democracy does collapse, there will still be democratic memories, which people do not have now, and after the next revolution the failures in the constitution can be addressed: we just do not know what failures there are in it now.

    • #2676908

      Emotional blackmail …

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to What’s going to happen in Iraq now that all

      I consider it quite unsavoury to expect countries which were opposed to the war, to now help in peacekeeping and associated activities because a moral burden has been thrust upon them. America started the mess against the advice of and without the agreement of most other countries, yet these countries would appear heartless if they did not respond to the sheer humanitarian act of helping those who are not in a position to help themselves.

      I suggest the timing of the war was deliberately chosen. Bush held off just long enough to get his troops and heavy armaments into position, but not long enough to disprove the existence of WMDs, and then went hell for leather with a total disregard for the opinions of UN countries and others.

      And the much-touted “shock and awe” phase may just as well heve been a fireworks display except that it demolished buildings which Bush and his cronies hope to rebuild at a profit, paid for with Iraqi oil. But they can’t start rebuilding yet, and even Iraq is not benefitting from the sale of any of its oil.

      And as far as we know Hussein is still alive, and no realistic attempt was made to correctly identify the alleged bodies of his two sons. No doubt I’ll cop some flak over this one, but I would feel much reassured by a proper indentification by family, friends or allies, and do you mean to tell me that they don’t keep dental records in Iraq?

      • #2686978

        Saving face …

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to Emotional blackmail …

        What I think is abundantly clear is that, having found no WMDs, and refusing to admit that oil was ever a part of the equation, America HAS to try and prove that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, as this remained their only excuse for the invasion.

        Because of the complexity of the situation, I don’t think it is possible at this point to say that, yes, the Iraqi people are better off and overall grateful for being liberated from their dictator.

        But all this analysis to save face for America is irrelevant. The action has been taken, and it is only helpful to keep moving forward towards making Iraq a safer place than it was before, and to be self-governing. Until this situation has been achieved and stabilised, ifs and whyfores about justification for the invasion are irrelevant.

        But I would still assert that the US, supported by the UK, (with a little help from Australia and some others) made the decision to invade against the advice of most others countries, and thus it remains their obligation to ensure that the invasion eventually achieves its stated goal of leaving Iraq ultimately in the position of being able to govern and maintain itself without being under the bondage of the cruel dictator.

      • #2686953

        We Agree to a Degree

        by oldefar ·

        In reply to Emotional blackmail …

        Jules,

        I have to concede your basic points on this, in large measure because I considered making the same basic points from the opposing position.

        I find the use of emotional blackmail unsavory. In particular the attempt to move all ill to the coalition forces with no recognition that it is not these forces which are choosing to hide within the civilian population in order to create casualties of innocent people, that it is not these forces which are targeting those intent only on providing humanitarian aid, that it is not these forces that are sabotaging infrastructure to deprive local citizens of power, water, and fuel. It is an attempt to make these forces appear heartless even as they respond with humanitarian objectives.

        The timing of the war was assuredly selected. I suspect part of the timing was to counter the effort of Saddam to make this simply an issue of WMD instead of an issue of an inhumane regime that needed to be removed.

        The much touted ?shock and awe? campaign was without doubt a fireworks display, meant to impress upon such other nations as Syria, Iran, and North Korea not to underestimate either the non-nuclear military capability of the Western democracies or their willingness to use it. After all, the nuclear threat has been greatly undermined by the reluctance of any rational government to use it. It remains a threat primarily among rogue regimes where decisions are solely in the hands of a single individual or small cadre of fanatics. As for the destruction of facility, this past war was waged with a much smaller emphasis on destruction of infrastructure then the Gulf War had, and both of these were substantially less than previous wars.

        I believe we all will be more comfortable with positive proof that certain individuals have been killed. That no realistic attempts to do so have been made is an opinion I cannot accept, since there is no downside to having such proof.

        • #2686949

          Don’t say another word …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to We Agree to a Degree

          and dispel my “shock and awe” that a fair-minded American actually agrees with some of the most blunt statements I have made about the war.

          And thanks for your honesty and humility in ceding to some of my points.

          The fact is that at this point in time, most comments that can be made about the Iraq situation are mere speculations and opinions. There are simply too many different activities taking place in various parts of the country, so that no sweeping statement or generalisation can be sensibly made. Any analysis of the change in status quo is impossible until some degree of stability is achieved.

    • #2687005

      NGO’S ARE THERE STILL

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to What’s going to happen in Iraq now that all

      US forces have been doing MOOTW operations for decades now. I am confident that the US military will be able to meet this challenge. Nonetheless, there are some NGO’s still in Iraq. Some have reduced staffing or moved to more secure locations but they are there.

      What good is humanitarian aide if the people deliverying the aide are not willing to stare harms way down to defeat it?

      Additionally, I think that the anti-war weenies should join the Peace Corps. Then the government should re-vamp the Peace Corps to support roles like this.

    • #2686946

      OzMentalcase, you are such a biggot!!

      by marbib ·

      In reply to What’s going to happen in Iraq now that all

      How could you say those things about minorities and Arab-Americans. We are sick and tired of “camel” comments and being called sand-ni#$ers. I have just as much right to be in this country as you do. I am an American!

      • #2686826

        WOW

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to OzMentalcase, you are such a biggot!!

        You sure you read MY post? I’ve never referred to Arabs as camel whatever’s or sand-N&^%ers.

        And what’s this about you having as much right to live in America as me? I’m in Canada and hold a British passport?!?

        You’re gonna have to explain your rant a little better than that, sorry.

      • #2686777

        Sorry – I disagree with him – but I never seen that from him

        by jimhm ·

        In reply to OzMentalcase, you are such a biggot!!

        Yo – Marbib – where did you see those comments from Oz. Now him and I never have or will agree on things. But I have never read anything he has written that race bates. Can you provide where you seen it … to defend your post?

        I have used – incorrect reference about WVa’s and have been called on it … But I have never read any posts from Oz calling someone a Camal Jockey or Sand N*((& –

        Me thinks you owe this man an Appology…

    • #2686915

      I am back – Italian / Spanish and Japaneese are

      by jimhm ·

      In reply to What’s going to happen in Iraq now that all

      Those attacked over the weekend after GWB’s visit during Thanksgiving (OK OZ – I know you have something to say about that) … Have all stated they are increasing troop strength in Iraqi.

      I have not read anywhere that the AID workers were pulling out…

      It’s interesting – everyone is bitching about how long we are in Iraqi – but not a Word about how long the UN has been in Kosovo – Interesting.

      The UN still has not established a stable government in that region – the economy of that area is still depressed. But what do they want – they want to take over IRAQI – Oh yea that will work – 50 years from now they would still be there.

      Happy Holidays all,.

      • #2686825

        Welcome back Jim

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to I am back – Italian / Spanish and Japaneese are

        Although we will argue that the sky is blue, it’s still nice to see you back again. 🙂

        The thanksgiving thing, well Iraqis didn’t buy it, I’ve posted that link here somewhere.

        “but not a Word about how long the UN has been in Kosovo – Interesting”

        Not quite the same as the US army occupying a country, they don’t seem to kill as many people as yuo do and simply look to resolve by occupation and policing efforts. The UN is not the US Army and thankfully doesn’t act the same way either.

      • #2686021

        About the Aid Agencies pulling out

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to I am back – Italian / Spanish and Japaneese are

        Perhaps you are not getting full news reports in the USA but at least here in AUstralia we do and the last of the Aid Agencies has shut down after having it’s building attacked and the lives of its staff threatned most of which where Iraqie.

        But on the other point I will agree that the UN is still there and will be for a hell of a long time yet, but then again so will we be in Iraq as change doesn’t happen overnight with an acceptiable outcome anyway.

        What I do find interesting is the number of apointed officials who are ending up dead right now in Iraq it seems to me at least that the resistance is a lot stronger than is being let on by the people who know.

      • #2686001

        UN has been in Kosovo – Interesting

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to I am back – Italian / Spanish and Japaneese are

        Just watched a show that ended with five inutes on Canadian soldiers and the UN in Kosovo. THey are doing extremely well, they know that these people cannot simply change overnight and are willing to stay and provide aide until it is no longer needed. They are in no rush to leave and are received extremely well.

        There has been some accusations that forces are there just to show a bigger threat to terrorists which in turn is being called terrorism in itself but the people of Kosovo are very happy to have them there. A friend of my brothers just retuned after six months stationed in Kosovo, he said it’s beautiful and the people are so much fun. Pretty much mist of the day is spent hanging out with residents and helping them. There is terrorism but it is limited now as compared to when he got there. He said all in all, it’s a war on terrorism but it was the best assignment he’s received. He was also in Iran during the Gulf and said in comparison, it was a horror show that we only saw the good parts of.

        • #2685874

          During the initial months of the war in Kovoso many died

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to UN has been in Kosovo – Interesting

          In the initial months after they took out Malosavich (SP) there were attacks on UN and US troops…. Give the Iraqi theater a chance to work … All because the US doesn’t want the Frog’s involved (because of their dealing with Saddam in violation of UN mandates) – doesn’t mean its wrong…

          Got to look at it in a balanced light… Kosovo – Salsmala (SP) – and where else is the UN still intrenched around the world trying to help people form a government… All they are doing is establishing themselfs as some kind of NWO..

        • #2685800

          Interesting perspective

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to During the initial months of the war in Kovoso many died

          I’ll simply accept your post jim as it does have some valid points. HOwever I feel the Canadian ansd UN soldiers are being received much better than the US in Iraq.

          You mention that the French breached US sanctions. The UN and USA has done this themselves for several years now.

          I found a good read from the Report to Congress that was in the US Embassy’s library files.
          It outlines who was breaching sanctions and how.

          Now this is the tip of the ice berge, I have posted several more links that take this further if you are interested.
          http://tinyurl.com/w3aa

          IOne ting I did notice was that even this report kinda skips over the US involvement. It states that many countries Breached the Oil-food-food campaign and how th eUS exports from smaller dealers other than Iraq. this is inadvertently saying that the US has not been fuelling (excuse the pun)this trading. On the other hand, if the US wasn’t buynig oil from these countries, they’d have no demand and would be less inclined to breach the sanctions. Wave a carrot, or a few US dollars, and they willl stoop to any level to meet the US demand. Mind you, with Saddam gone, the need for these middle men would be reduced and you could export directly from Iraq even though Saddam had stopped that already.

          Other reports say just how long 9y pto 18 months) the USA was holding back exports to Iraq as they needed to inspect for dual purpose goods. At the same time that Saddam was supposedly ignoring UN inspection needs, the US was ignoring Iraq’s Dual-purpose goods inspections, thus starving the people and slowing the delivery of medical supplies. There’s always two sides, unfortunately you are rarely shown both.

      • #2685970

        Dead right, Jim

        by hereinoz ·

        In reply to I am back – Italian / Spanish and Japaneese are

        Spot on Jim,

        Personally I would take it further and say that whoever is occupying Iraq will never be able to fix it. I don’t think it is fixable with western democracy.

        Don’t ask me for what will fix it – I don’t have an answer to that. Probably another despot!

        Alan

    • #2686820

      Interesting report

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to What’s going to happen in Iraq now that all

      There was an interesting report on CBC this weekend. It was a one hour special regarding the US censorship on Iraqi war reports.

      One example had an 8 year old child who’s parents had both been killed when thier home was bombed. He lost all linbs and is nicknamed (inappropriately “stubby”) he was brought out in a celebrity style for a photo op for reporters. He screamed and wailed from the pain for the duration of the photo op as he was also burned on 70% of his small frame. One reporter took many pictures and upon sending them to his editor he was called and asked, “Don’t you have any with him smiling?” This just shows the lunacy behind the censorship of reports leaving Iraq, people don’t want to see casualties suffer, that way they can turn thier backs and accept America’s actions.

      Pictures where a soldier is deformed or decapitated are also censored. Pictures that show the dead faces, censored. Pictures of injured American soldiers, censored.
      Who censors the reporters pictures? The White House.

      If you are unprepared to look at or look away such such pictures printed in your news, you must also second guess the war itself. Death IS war, not gains.

      This report showed exactly how censored the US reports really are and how they just want patriotic news to ensure full support of the American people.

      This isn’t new by any means, this goes back to WWI but has been worked around for years as new reporting mediums are introduced. The Internet is something that reporters use to transmit censored photos without them being censored, if you want to see the REAL effects of the Iraq war, look at some Canadian, British and Iraqi reports.
      You can discount any text as slander or anti-American propaganda (which shouldn’t be so, because America is wanted there right?)but a photograph is worth a thousand words. Even BUSH can’t deny a picture of a dead civillian who was injured in questionably neccessary cross fire, that’s why it is censored. You have no answer, just don’t show it, it is easier for people to accept ar if all they hear is the positive.

      Bottom line, thousands of Iraqi’s are dead or dying, the American casualties are also immense, however rarely reported as so.

      Read between the lines guys.

      • #2686020

        OZ perhaps there is such a level of

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Interesting report

        Censorship because the current US Administration doesn’t want a repeat of what happened with the Nam issue.

        • #2686013

          Censorship

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to OZ perhaps there is such a level of

          The censorship was actually strongest during WWI and had been slowly eased through all of the wars since.
          The Iran War was almost a 24hr movie on my TV, always on and always showing Americans at war.

          They have HAD to lower levels of censorship due to the many mediums available to reporters now. The reporters interviewed, there were about seven throughout the hour, had all said that thier editor blocks pictures due to
          1) Ratings – people would’t watch GORE

          2) White House restrictions: All reports and photographs must be reviewed by the Wite House or in more recent times at least adhere to strict written guideines.

          Now this may be in some people’s better interests, these really aren’t pictures of death you’d see in a movie it’s really dead people.

          In the same sense, one reporter raised a very good argument that if these people wouldn’t want to see such things in the paper or TV, then perhaps they NEED to in order to make a decision about war in the future. Many that hear of ‘casualties’ don’t picture someone that’s been disembowled with his limbs strewn across a dirt pile. These people will find it easier to vote for the wrong politician or stand behind a war with ease as opposed to someone who has seen war and death.

          I think that even if through a select unbiased channel, the world’s people should have the ABILITY to see what is really happening. If they choose not to watch or simply cannot stomache the graphic images, then perhaps they will think twice about war next time, instead of cheering from the sidelines oblivious to the reality.

          The Canadian news has been VERY graphic to say the least. Domestic animals feeding on entrails, a clearing where several people were blown across a good 100′, they were mistakenly identified as they waited for public transport. An American soldier about 20 years at most shot through the abdomen (later he died), a small Iraqi girl 4-6yrs old who had been crying for three days straight after losing her mother, her left leg, most of her hand and part of her skull from having her house bombed.

          This is war, understandably people will die and innocent people suffer by the thousands, just like the WTC. The difference is, you SAW the WTC as it happened. If reporters HAD been censored, too many people had video cameras, you watched people jump from several hundred feet in mercy from suffering from the fire.THIS was horror and it shocked Americans beyond thier wildest imagination. They watched as 3000 people died right before thier eyes.

          If this footage was returning from Iraq, do you really think so many people would support war?

          Sorry for the segue, you know how I get side tracked.

        • #2685941

          When did the US fight IRAN ??? – I missed that War

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Censorship

          OK give with some dates of when the US invaded and did battle with IRAN …. I must of been sleeping during that War…

        • #2685795

          Correction

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to When did the US fight IRAN ??? – I missed that War

          I’m sorry jim,. I didn’t mean a war AGAINST Iran but was referring to the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

          My bad.

        • #2686431

          OZ what we where talking about here was US

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Censorship

          Censership. I personally think they have learnt a thing or two as well because they had wall to wall coverage but very little “Meat” in other words we only got to see what they wanted us to see.

          This is the best form of censership because they just load up the TV stations with all the junk like battles being won and don’t show any of the down side like naked children running from a bomb blast like in Vetinam. This way we get a sanatised version of what the Government want us to see and not what is really going on.

          Actually when you think about things this is a brilliant idea just giving 24 hour coverage makes people sick and tired of things so that if anything does splip through no one notices because they aren’t watching any more.

        • #2686423

          Colin

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to OZ what we where talking about here was US

          Hey Colin, hows things?

          I agree with you regarding teh censorship being sanitized.
          I was watching Band of Brothers last night (for the 50th time I’m sure) I really think that it takes a lot of Hollywood out of the picture, only one or two well known actors (Wahlberg and Swimmer) and the parts are limited, you don’t get overwhelmed with “hey that’s so and so from …”

          One thing that is shown lightly but still implied is the media censorship. When fighting the bulge, a camera crew is sent by the USA. As sodiers near the front lines are running for safety in thier foxholes, they are asked to smile for the people back home. Later after a massive and very brutal battle that lost many, they were sat on a tank, singing while the cameras shot thier happy faces once again. This is a movie but the reality of censorship in the media is shown.

          the same with Platoon as Copolla’s cameo has him telling GI’s not to stare at the camera as they walk by and he casts them like actors in a movie as they are running past the camera.

          For the people back home, they only see the end result, happy American GI’s as they trumpet over a new victory, not the death and loss it took to get it.

          This is day to day life in america, I’ve seen it myself, the news is SO colourful, that the meaning and negtative aspects are not seen at all.

          American’s are desensitized toward war because it is glorified and therefore MUCH easier to support and stand behind. Why do all the MAJOR protests come from OUTSIDE America? Because they see it first hand and won’t support the horror without an absolute neccessity.

        • #2684820

          OZ this should be safe now that most

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Colin

          People have lost interest as it was something that I got a few days/weeks ago and I at least got a good laugh from it. But then again I understand that the Australian Government has put out a booklet informing foreginers just how bad we Aussies actually are and how we like to make fun of most things. I’m trying to get a copy but it looks like I’ll have to get one from overseas and when I get my grooty little hands on it I’ll post the revelant parts here on TR and see what the resonce is.

          But this joke arrived recently from a US site so some of my fait is part way restored:-

          War Games

          Reporter:
          Mr. Rumsfeld, how do you account for the superiority of the U.S. troops?

          Rumsfeld:
          Our troops have trained under the best leaders and they’ve had access to the most technologically advanced computer system on earth.

          Reporter:
          And what do you call this system, Sir?

          Rumsfeld:
          Nintendo!

      • #2685942

        I guess because it was against the war it was ok to do it

        by jimhm ·

        In reply to Interesting report

        Oz – I guess because he depicted the bad side of war it was OK to drag this kid – screaming in pain in front of leftest reports, burned of 70% of his body. But your point was – censorship about the American media.

        Not that the leftest news DRAGED THIS KID OUT OF HIS HOSPITAL BED – SCREAMING IN PAIN – From his injuries. Not that the Hospital stopped his Pain medication – not that the hospital pulled this kid from a steril environment to a germ infested open area so Leftest News agencies could take propaganda pictures…

        OZ – you killed your own argurment in the first sentence…

        WHY DID THESE LEFTEST NEWS AGENCY DO THIS TO THE POOR KID? – WHAT POINT DID IT MAKE? – WHERE DOES IT SHOW CENSORSHIP? –

        Remember during war there a few things that happen that man can not stop.
        1) Good men and women Die.
        2) Doctors and medician can not change rule number 1.
        3) No matter how “Smart” the bombs are there will always be calateral damage – where non-combatents are killed or injured.

        Lets look at WWII and the British bombing of Dresdrin (SP?) they killed over 200,000 civilians during that night raid? Hum – they set the entire city on fire – children, women, old folks, sick, those in hospitals – Remember reading about that in your history class… Hum – Well Oh – yea that right it was during time of war and you guys were paying back Hitler for bombing London.

        During War this stuff happens… along with freindly fire deaths –

        • #2685785

          Wrong road Jim, turn around

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I guess because it was against the war it was ok to do it

          Every sentence in your post begins with Leftists and every adjective used is leftist.

          Before I address that, you mentioned that this kid was taken off pain mediaction and removed from a sterilized room. What pain medication? What sterilized room?

          One point made was that due to the US failing to conduct dual-purpose goods inspections in a timely fashion for sanctions THEY had imposed, medical supplies are in extreme need in Iraq hospitals.

          The hospital this boy was in was barely livable as a mud hut yet alone a hospital, they simply do not have the means to tend to these people who may have been saved in a standard hospital, as you and I know them.

          There were reporters from all over the world, ‘STUMPY’ was a child shown worldwide and he picked up the inappropriate nickname of STUMPY, I guess accept America if you don’t know of him.

          He wasn’t removed from a comfy bed all dosed up on drugs, he was simply in pain with no end insight to it and laying in a small single room that looked like a slum, this is the hospital.
          he was also just one of MANY children who were in such a state as you could hear others in the background.

          Now all these LETY reporters you are referring to must be any reporter from around the world except the USA. There were British, US, Canadian, Iraqi and reporters from all over the globe on site. The reason THIS person was shown is because in a hospital of any sort, you can’t simply let reporters roam around daily and there was a need for some form of press release, therefore it must be somewhat organized.

          The US reporters were the ones saying that thier editors had refused to publish the pictures due to the unpopularity of the images. Like I said, one US reporter stated that his editor wnated a picture with the boy smiling. Now THAT would be propaganda, shall we say RIGHTY-propaganda then?

          The difference I see is what you consider lefty reporting is one that shows the pain and suffering of war, REALITY. A TRUE acceptable American report, righty report, would only show the positive and successful side of the war?

          Which would you rather see, the actual pain and suffering that is inevitable in any war or the colorful stars and stripes version of US soldiers eating Thanksgiving dinner with the Pres?

          Before you answer, if you choose the latter, perhaps you should thnk again about supporting war of any kind, the reality of war isn’t pretty as you MUST have learned in NAM. Returning from NAM you must have also experienced the negative propaganda that was fed to the US public while you were at war. Knowing how the story was told and how it actually unfolded MUST have shown you that US media sources are completely unreliable and biased.

        • #2686299

          I am confused – Your State that

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Wrong road Jim, turn around

          I am confused you said in Interest Report that showed the censorship of the US media was

          “One example had an 8 year old child who’s parents had both been killed when thier home was bombed. He lost all linbs and is nicknamed (inappropriately “stubby”) he was brought out in a celebrity style for a photo op for reporters. He screamed and wailed from the pain for the duration of the photo op as he was also burned on 70% of his small frame. One reporter took many pictures and upon sending them to his editor he was called and asked, “Don’t you have any with him smiling?” This just shows the lunacy behind the censorship of reports leaving Iraq, people don’t want to see casualties suffer, that way they can turn thier backs and accept America’s actions.”

          So my question – was who dragged him out of bed? (A hospital room no matter what kind – even a tent in the jungle was better than being laying in the field.) Why? – For What Reason – How does it show Censorship? –

          To address your question of Why the Editor blocked the photo’s – Would you permit groosum photo’s be published… Did the BBC or British papers show photo’s of those in the WTC jumping hitting the Ground? or did they Censor those – did they show the people comming out of the WTL that were burnt over 80% with no closes on? or was it censored? – The Editor has to make a choice of what is worthy – Do you believe everything should be published – without question other wise its censorship?

          How would of you felt if that was your Nephew? Would you want his photo plastered all over the Worlds media – would you want him yanked from his sick bed to be paraded around for a JAPO? –

          There’s more to the question of censorship – than just a picture?

          Now for the Leftest – Most of the US reports are focused more to the Left some are Right and very very few are Center (where all should be) – all I want is just report the freaking news I don’t need their editorials or op-ed’s about it that I can figure out for myself, you know what I mean Vern. As to European reports; they trend to be the same way – only some have very strict government mandates of what they can and can’t report. And don’t tell me they all can print negative things about their government …

    • #2686769

      Returning to your original request for ideas..

      by oldefar ·

      In reply to What’s going to happen in Iraq now that all

      Michael Vickers identifies the 5 currencies used by people as time, money, security, knowledge, and prestige. Perhaps we should look at these relative to restoring Iraq to Iraqis.

      Security is the first one I will consider. For the Iraqis, those who felt a direct threat from Saddam?s regime received an immediate gain when the coalition forces arrived. However, as long as remnants of that regime are in place, the gain is mitigated. For those Iraqis who supported Saddam, there was and continues to be a negative impact in their security wealth. In between these two are the majority of Iraqis who felt no immediate threat under Saddam or from his removal. For them, security is from ?normal? crime, and from meeting their everyday needs of food, water, food, shelter, medical care, and meaningful work that hold promise of continuing to meet these needs. A positive gain in security for these Iraqis will come from a return to work, repair of infrastructure, and adequate Iraqi police protection with an Iraqi justice system in place. Also, a return to school for their children. In short, a ?back to normal? environment.

      Prestige is an issue of self-respect and respect from others. Two approaches seem to offer the best return. First is to solicit input from the Iraqi citizens on as many aspects of restoring their country as possible. On as local a basis as possible the Iraqi should be prioritizing needs. Perhaps at the village or neighborhood level. If that input is not accepted, it needs to have a rationale as to why. For example, electricity may be a top priority for a particular community but delivery depends on regional action. This can also be a lesson in democracy. Second is to keep focused on and to keep Iraqis focused on as early a withdraw of coalition forces as possible. The country is theirs, this is not an army of occupation, and the Iraqi are capable of self government. I would like to see the Iraqi people select no outside assistance, or outside assistance from a group they choose, at the earliest possible time.

      Money is another issue that clouds everyone?s focus. A possible solution is an immediate draw for each head of household based on the number of family members. The draw is a no interest loan against their return to earning a wage. This preserves their self respect as well.

      Knowledge is primarily handled through communication of accurate information. Good news and bad, shared in a timely fashion through multiple methods. The more news is controlled, the more knowledge is a negative aspect. Simply knowing what is going on means a great deal to most people. It is also harder to use propaganda against an informed citizenry. Just consider how often both sides of any discussion throw the BS flag with supporting links in this forum!

      Time ? well, there is never enough. No ideas here.

      • #2686019

        Thanks Ken

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Returning to your original request for ideas..

        I was begining to despair that anyone would face the original question as they all seem to be going off on tangents of their own.

        The only real problem that I have with the idea of handing out loans is the fact that currently there is not enough food/medical supplies/utilities so even though there may be money available it doesn’t mean that the people can live. Early today there was a report on the TV News where a US convey was attacked and they returned fire fairly well. It seems that they where carring money and this was the reason for the concerted attack but after all when everything is said and done money is just that it means that you can buy what you want when you want provided that whatever is available and currently that is the problem in Iraq. Through the necessary disruption of this conflict it means that the external trade has been stoped and currently there is not enough of anything to support the local citizens of Iraq particuarly in the major cities as these places are dependant on imported supplies either from outside the Country or from the farming areas of the country and with the current situation these supplies have at best been interupted.

        • #2686002

          Note the order

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Thanks Ken

          I agree, which is why security was at the top and included the necessities of life. Consider the ideas as parallel paths to take, and the justification behind the paths.

          Success will come only by a positive exchange.

      • #2685956

        Outstanding common sense …

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to Returning to your original request for ideas..

        Well Oldfar, you always present your ideas calmly, but convincingly, and try and maintain the peace between people of differing viewpoints.

        But your above commments are outstandingly sensible, and way above the largely emotively-charged statements presented in these various discussions. Now if you could somehow get the people in charge to see the logic in these simple observations, I am sure the chaos in Iraq would be cleared up a lot faster.

    • #2673478

      Watched an interesting program on TLC – about the Werewolfs (Terrorists)

      by jimhm ·

      In reply to What’s going to happen in Iraq now that all

      The other day – The Learning Channel – had a very interesting program that discussed the Werewolfs group that were terrorist between 1945 and 1947.

      This group of men, women and children from the Hilter Youth that blew up buildings, murdered new mayors and those they felt were collaborating with the Allies, attacking Allied troops between 1945 and 1947.

      During one 3 month period of time in 1946 they had committed 500 acts of terrorism on the Allied and German civilians.

      Interesting isn’t it that the Media has never said anything about this – that what is occuring in Iraqi is new and the Allied armies have never encourted this before. Interesting how the Media forgets about the past just to stir the shit pot for today. The British and Americans did an individual search for the WereWolfs – where France and Russa did mass retaliations (Russian killed 200 German citizens each time a Werewolf attack happened) – France was a little kinder and only did 25 civilians – but would rape the women before they were killed.

      These were all document facts – according to the report – I wonder if anything about it is on the Net… But Interesting isn’t it…

      It aint the first time this stuff has happened and it will not be the last…

Viewing 9 reply threads