Topic awaiting preservation: Gulf War 2 ][

And thread continues from here:
www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000768.html

and I refuse to call it GW tutu

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

This is article reflects a lot of my concerns (although it is more cynical):
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,933487,00.html

[edit: And this was scary:

quote:

---

The wider global impact of this war was spelled out by North Korea's foreign ministry this week. "The Iraqi war shows," it declared, with unerring logic, "that to allow disarmament through inspections does not help avert a war, but rather sparks it", concluding that "only a tremendous military deterrent force" can prevent attacks on states the US dislikes.

---

they are completely nuts ]


----------

Interesting things afoot in Northern Iraq. According to the senior BBC man there the US special forces were planning to take Kirkuk on Saturday with a limited Kurdish invovlement (as they agreed with the Turks) but the other day Peshmerga special forces dressed in civilian clothes and moved into Kirkuk, fired a couple of shots and the Iraqi force melted away. The US special forces had to move quickly to get a foothold in the city but it has largely been taken by the Kurds and I believe Colin Powell has been speaking to the Turkish government as there are still 10 thousand Turkish shoulders just over the border who would invade at the drop of a hat (causing another small scale war no one wants).

See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2934625.stm

As explained here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2871775.stm

The Kirkuk oil fields are the biggest in the Middle East and if the Kurd's controlled it they could cut themselves loose from the rest of Iraq and form the nucleus of a new Kurdistan which will cause all sorts of problems.

-------
And it appears that the only people who are going to illegally use chemical weapons in Iraq is... urmmmmm us:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,931873,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

And on the issue of Syria getting targetted:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,933502,00.html

I do hope this is just an attempt to scare them into being more compliant but.......

and this cuaght my attention:

quote:

---

On Monday Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said Britain would have "nothing to do" with threats against Damascus and Tehran, and announced a relaxation of export controls on dual-use civilian and military equipment for Iran.

---

As I said the UK has had a more pro-Arab stance than the US (pos. because it is largely our fault) and so it is good we are distancing ourselves from the threats aimed at Syria and Iran but we did have a much vaunted ethical foreign policy and I can't see how exporting dual-use goodies to Iran can be a part of that or good for regional stability.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I like your articles Emperor for they mostly sum up my opinions too, and they are often sarcastic about certain things

This said, I sincerely hope the USA won't begin a crusade against the 'Axis of Evil' (tm). That would be foolish in my opinion. Removing Shaddam was mostly accepted by the international opinion. Even if the Americans and English didn't find any mass destruction weapon. Even if they surely did that for oil. Even if they did that without the ONU approval. Even if were told so many times that the Iraqi army was powerful and fearsome (media intoxication..). It was accepted because it was Saddam. But now if the USA want to do that in any other country, I don't think they will be approved. I was opposed to the war but I tolerate it because Saddam needed to be removed. But now I would really not tolerate any new 'not-really-justified' war.

But then I wanted to ask you : are you pro or con an administration of Iraq via the USA or via the ONU ?

MS: What I want (an interim UN administration followed as soon as possible by elections) is not what we'll get.

quote:

---

But now if the USA want to do that in any other country, I don't think they will be approved. I was opposed to the war but I tolerate it because Saddam needed to be removed. But now I would really not tolerate any new 'not-really-justified' war.

---

But the case hasn't yet been made

Syria is known to have large chemical and biological weapons programs and is not backing down from the US - it may also be harbouring Saddam's female family members and some of Iraq's WMD as well as supplying military aid to Saddam's forces and acting as a conduit for anti-US groups to enter Iraq. I'm sure if they were minded they could build a case to invade Syria.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emps, I absolutely believe the Arabs are capable of democracy. I just don't know if there is sufficient desire for it at this time in history. With the exception of Turkey, there are no Arab democracies. You must admit that is a very depressing statistic

Actually, I believe I linked to the Woolsey article. Please take a look at that transcript and you will find his presentation there. I'll link it again for convenience -> TRANSCRIPT: America, Iraq and the War on Terrorism, UCLA Just scroll down to JAMES WOOLSEY

WS, to be honest, NeoCon sounds pretty cool to me but I love the compassionate conservative label still. Either will do for now I suppose.

You asked:

quote:

---

In what time-frame, do you see this happening? I am curious, as to how long you are willing to wait, to make this decision. 5 years? 10? Or do you think it should be done quicker?

---

I would be comfortable with a 5 year time frame but I want it done as soon as possible. So quicker would be much better and I want the military government out before it gets in. I want an Iraqi based government put in place immediately and that should have been prepared before we started this thing. It wasn't and I am bothered by that.

MS,

quote:

---

But then I wanted to ask you : are you pro or con an administration of Iraq via the USA or via the ONU ?

---

If you want mobrul's dire prediction of another right wing dictator thug put in place to act as the West's boy... by all means allow the countries who opposed and tried to block regime change to pick the next government. That is my round about way of saying you had better allow the countries that have a vested interest in democracy in the region to do it. I know that answer is going to upset you and I'm sorry about that but I am very serious about it.

The UN (ONU) should be all means do what it does best and that is pour humanitarian relief into Iraq. But it should not be allowed to do what it does the worst or this whole exercise will be for naught.

[edit] I mispoke above. Turks are not Arabs, right? So make that stat naught. [/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-10-2003).]

Damn it Emps, No Gulf War Tutu....

Well, we will see, about the Axis of Evil...personally, I would really like to see both North Korea and Iran dealt with - they've been thorns in the side of the West for awhile now...and they certainly are not friendly nations.

That aside, I am somewhat concerned about what the Bush administration will do next. One more war, and I'm pretty sure that it has decided to try the Pax Americana ideal. This I will oppose. I'm not against removing threats like NK or Iran, but I'm very against the Pax Americana plan.

On the other hand, the situation in Iraq is heating up full story hereIraqi Forces Surrender in Mosul
Kurds Control Oil Hub in Northern Iraq -

quote:

---

Farther south, in the city of Najaf, a mob of outraged Shiite Muslims killed two rival Shiite clerics whom U.S. officials had brought together Thursday at the city's revered Mosque of Ali for a ceremonial reconciliation and a step toward restoration of Iraqi civilian administration. Similarly, a tribal notable picked to help lead the reconstitution of civilian administration in Basra was denounced by an angry, stone-throwing crowd that accused the British military occupying Iraq's second-largest city of trying to impose a leadership tainted by association with Hussein.

--Washington Post

---

Hmmm...looks like initial attempts to bring things under control have failed miserably...not a good sign. And getting the Kurds out of Kirkuk will now be next to impossible, I think...so I expect that Turkey is going to have a melt-down on that...I just hope that American troops don't end up between them - or in a situation like that of Vietnam right after the end of WWII...supporting the Kurds, and then politically 'abandoned' by the US (because of Turkey). I'm eyeing the situation with real concern...because I believe that this potiental problem could be the beginnings of something very, very dangerous...

Hmmm...turkey is getting restless Turkish press rages at Kurds and US especially this part is concerning

quote:

---

Triggers

"If the Turkish army's military intervention in northern Iraq becomes unavoidable, co-ordinated action with US troops will be the preferred option," it says.

"If this cannot be accomplished, the Turkish army will reserve its right to act independently."

The newspaper lists four possible triggers for a Turkish incursion:

Peshmerga continue "plundering and pillaging" Kirkuk and Mosul
They refuse to leave the area
They attack the Turkmen "in a bid to annihilate them or to force them to leave the area"
Attempts are made to tilt the demographic balance in Kirkuk and Mosul in favour of the Kurds

--BBC

---

It sure does seem to be heating up. And the present stance of the Bush Administration towards Syria looks alot like that of pre-war Iraq...things are definitely brewing...

According to this Chaos Reigns in Iraq Turkey has entered Iraq.

quote:

---

Turkey warned against any bid by the Kurds to retain permanent control of Kirkuk, while Washin-gton said its forces would take control of the city.

Turkey, meanwhile, is rushing military observers to Kirkuk to make sure that Kurdish fighters withdraw from the city.

--Gulf News

---

Well...that was quick. I wonder how long it will take the Turks to mobilize their military? Or will the Kurds back down? Somehow, I seriously doubt that. The situation is really explosive, right now...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-11-2003).]

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-11-2003).]

WS: My understanding was that the Kurds had a greed to withdraw and I thick it will be a big test of the Pehsmerga - they claim to be an army now not just guerillas but who knows how much centralised control they have over all the fighting forces nominally under their control. Also if I was a Turkish military observer I'd stick very close to the US special forces - having travelled through Turkish Kurdistan I know they wouldn't turn down the chance to slip a knife between the ribs of a Turkish special advisor (the border their is porous and people just seem to wander between countries anyway so I'd imagine there are plenty of Turkish Kurds there).

It appears the Kurds (with the US special forces this time) have taken Mosul too:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,934802,00.html

And it is interesting as they mention in that article there aren't Iraq flags there are just Kurdish flags.

quote:

---

A leader of Kurdish forces in Kirkuk, who pushed into the city against US wishes yesterday, to the alarm of Turkey, said that they expected to hand over control to the US later today. Jalal Talabani, the leader of one of the Kurdish factions, told Turkey's CNN-Turk television that all Kurdish fighters would leave when US troops arrived to provide security.

---

The looting and general anarchy seems to be a big problem and I suppose is an inevitable consequence of a small force rapidly expanding across a country the size of France - any reinforcements are going into the final push into Tikrit and the current forces are spending their time clearing out pockets of resistance. However, it is really hampering aid efforts and will cause long term harm:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,934260,00.html

quote:

---

Iraq's slide into violent anarchy will trigger a humanitarian disaster if US and British troops are unable to fill the power vacuum and reassert order quickly, UN and other aid officials warned yesterday.
The warning came as looting in Baghdad spread from government buildings to hospitals, embassies and private businesses, and the growing lawlessness in the capital prevented the few remaining aid workers there from delivering badly needed medical supplies and water to hospitals.

---

www.societyguardian.co.uk/aidforiraq/story/0,12972,934784,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,934349,00.html

quote:

---

Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, led the charge when he reminded the two countries that they had an obligation under the Geneva convention to uphold the rule of law. "We have seen scenes of looting and obviously law and order must be a major concern," he said in New York.

His remarks were echoed by the International Committee for the Red Cross, which believes Britain and the US have committed a grave blunder.

A spokesman at the Geneva headquarters of the Red Cross said: "We are reminding Britain and the US that they have a responsibility to keep law and order in occupied territory. We have been surprised that looting has taken place."

Senior British military officers also voiced concern about the situation.

One said: "It is bigger than looting, it is the potential for tribal revenge and religious revenge, and getting your own back on the authorities."

---

Failing to maintain order violates articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention, allegedly:

Article 55

Article 56

and according to this also articles 30, 50 and 59:
www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/605771.htm

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Yes, the Kurd Authority (apparently, there is more than one) on one side said that they would leave the city...but another Kurd authority said that they wouldn't...now, if you were Turkey, what would you think? I guess actions speak louder than words here...obviously, the Kurds are not leaving...or are they? This just came in Turkey says Kurdish forces move out of Kirkuk; US forces operate along Iraq-Syria border. Hmmm...really need some news teams up there...

Either Turkey will just fume, and not do anything about this...or they will. Remains to be seen. The fact that they have sent advisors over the border is a bad sign, IMHO. I do find, however, that the situation up North is very unstable at the moment (esp. should the Kurds feel betrayed...then watch out).

Interesting is that there is relatively quiet on the fact that Iran supported groups are operating in North Iraq...I find that very unsettling.

As for preventing looting and revenge...well, troops are not the best choice for that type of duty...not at all. In fact, I believe that it would probably cause more problems than it solves. Apparently, the US boys and girls have enough to worry about...as their nervousness attests to. I don't particularly think that they are up to the task of installing Law and Order...most of these troops have been involved in killing...you don't want them policing either immediately after, or during this. It's very hard to discern between looters, and suicide bombers...or troops in civies...

First mop up the remaining defenders...and install order through recognized leaders - and get the police back in action ASAP. Or at least get some Blue-Helms in there...

Of course, just letting it 'run itself out' is not a good strategy...wtf are they thinking?

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-11-2003).]

WS:

quote:

---

As for preventing looting and revenge...well, troops are not the best choice for that type of duty...not at all. In fact, I believe that it would probably cause more problems than it solves.

---

I'm not too sure how much worse it could get on that front - I agree we are spread too thin but that isn't the problem of the people of Iraq who are at the sharp end of this with food, medical supplies and water starting to get scarce in some areas.

US troops might nt be the best people for this but the British troops are experts - they just need more of them and sending 2 military policemen to train the troops doesn't seem to do a lot of good (a someone said 200 MPs might do some good). I'm not sure of the protocol but the RUC are also well-trained in this kind of thing. As far as I can tell the UK Defence minister (Hoon - how apt) has been pretty dismissive of these problems until it became obvious what a serious issue this is so its possible (with pressure from other members of the cabinet) that hings might chnage on this front.

Of course UN peacekeeping forces (pos. partly drawn from other Arabic countires) would be ideal here..........

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

How it could get worse? How about the marines at that checkpoint that shot those two children and 9 others to death, because they didn't heed warnings to stop? You see, combat personel are just that - combat personel. Maybe some MPs, or along those lines would work...but actual soldiers that have just completed (or are in) battle, are not sensitive enough to the issues when it comes to Law and Order. You can't just mow them down. Also, there is the language problem, as well...

Just thought I would post this:

quote:

---

Excite - WASHINGTON (AP) - Fierce fighting and air strikes have completely destroyed the ability of Iraq's regular army and Republican Guard to mount conventional fighting, and no major military forces remain in the country, the Pentagon said Friday.

---

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 04-11-2003).]

I agree with WS that our troops are not well suited to peacekeeping simply because it is not their primary training and focus. It's very hard work and very dangerous and I suspect the troops hate it more than actual combat.

Blue-helms would be fine with me. But in the mean time our troops must restore order or things will fall apart way quick and that simply cannot be allowed to happen.

We all knew this would be the most difficult part of the deal. Mopping up the remaining forces will be easy compared to what lies ahead.

Emps, earlier when I mentioned the "I told you so" syndrome, I wasn't referring to most of the people here directly. I was thinking much more in terms of Janeane Garofalo when she said this

quote:

---

Garofalo did, however, promise that if she is proven wrong and Iraqis welcome U.S. troops who find stores of weapons of mass destruction, ?I will go to the White House on my knees on cut glass and say, 'hey, you were right, I shouldn?t have doubted you.'? But, she quickly added, ?I think to think that is preposterous.

---

Well, part of that has already happened and the other part will come.

Those bunkers are quite something. They are a very elaborate. I was watching some video of an army officer giving one of the embedded reporters a tour of a bunker underneath one of the palaces. I wonder how many of those are in the country? It could take quite a long time to investigate all of them. Too bad Hans & Mohammed never got a chance to check them out I think we should get him and his team back in there to help out.

Bugimus : it's ok. I asked for your opinions so I won't complain about it when you give it

When I think about the situation in Iraq it's a bit scary... When I see all those thefts, and all that people trying to make their own justice. The most horrible is that they say : " The USA are guilty for that ! ". But of course, the USA are not guilty for that. There is no law to force them to stop this. Oh yeah there is the Geneva convention, but the war isn't over so this law can't apply for now. Anyway I sincerely hope this won't end in a giant mess... I think the reconstruction will be hard given the recent events. Also, the ability of the Iraqi people to change their opinion that quickly will be something really hard to take into account. For example, if the Iraki people dedicde that the Americans have to leave their country for any reason, that would quickly lead to a civil war. I guess it's a result of at least 20 years of propaganda and forced opinions, but I really advise the Americans to be cautious about their goals in Iraq.

Now, the USA are saying that France will take the consequences of its refusal to the UN (thanks for the notification Bugimus). Well, it seems logic and not unjust in my opinion, but I hope the USA won't get back to the "belittling politic" we just witnessed a few weeks ago. So this said, it seems they are planning to rebuild Iraq by their own means. The contracts they already have made with US firms confirm this (hrrm and I won't evoke the political 'black things' under it). Anyway, I don't know what are planning our leaders with their conference in St-Petersbourg, but I think it's baout the UN. Now that they got implicated, they really have to dive into it

Bugs: I'm not sure who Janeane Garofalo but they deserve to be made to crawl over broken glass (and I'd be happy to watch) for such stupid statements - did they not think that one would come back and bite them on the ass in the near future?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well, looks like the Kurds are still in Kirkuk...Kurds Still Operating in Kirkuk Amid Turkey Fears
...and Turkey is pretty concerned about it - despite assurances from both the US, and the Kurdish Leaders that they would leave the city on Friday, they are still there...

Expect this situation to become very unstable, soon...it could be the start of massive problems in the North. I'm very concerned about it, and I am wondering how long Turkey will remain convinced of the verity of both the US and the Kurdish leaderships 'promises'...

I am also wondering why the US is not doing something about this situation. It just doesn't make much sense to me at this point...IMHO a very dangerous situation is being ignored, here...wtf is the Bush Administration thinking?

Okay...here is more Turkey threatens to send in forces ...but this interesting part maybe contains the key

quote:

---

In seeking the reversal of Kurdish intrusion from Kirkuk, the United States is, therefore, attempting to remove the key irritant that could encourage countries such as Turkey and to a lesser extent, Iran and Syria, to directly or indirectly intervene in the ongoing Iraq war.

--The Hindu

---

Is this then a plan to entice Iran and Syria? That would mean the US is willing to 'stick it to Turkey', maybe because Turkey refused to let US ground forces operate from there? It would be a very nice plan, to entice both Iran and Syria into something 'foolish'...anybody else seeing this?

Greece also issued warnings on Friday about this situation...damnit! Too bad our ambassador to Greece resigned...damnit!

On another front - so much for British troop abilities to install Law and Order Soldiers shoot bank robbers . I'm telling you, combat troops are not the right choice for implimenting Law and Order!



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-12-2003).]

WS:

quote:

---

Is this then a plan to entice Iran and Syria?

---

That would be nuts. However, you could be right

However, the parts of Kurdistan in Syria and Iran are pretty small compared with the large chunk in Turkey - for maps see:
www.krg.org/reference/maps.asp
www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/173.html
www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/facts/map.html

quote:

---

so much for British troop abilities to install Law and Order Soldiers shoot bank robbers . I'm telling you, combat troops are not the right choice for implimenting Law and Order!

---

It does look like the situation in northern Iraq is getting complicated with takes of semi-autonomy:
www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/12/sprj.irq.kurds.talibani/

but it looks like the Turkoman's are killing Kurds which might lead to reprisals and the Turks would invade at the drop of hat once that happened (although the source may be biased - although technically it needn't be true to actually cause problems):
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/1599157.php

in fact this site:
www.kurdmedia.com

might be worth watching to see what the Kurds are thinking (large pinches of salt available on the way in), for example:

Peshmurga being asked to stay in Mosul to maintain security:
www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=3717

ad request not to leave Kirkuk:
www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=3709

Also pos. repression of the Turkish Kurd's might not help the situation:
www.spacewar.com/2003/030412032611.28zjqyh7.html

and a quick article on ethnic divisions in Iraq:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/11/1049567875752.html

Well I didn't say they were perfect (as Northern Ireland proves) and they are overstretched but we have obligations to do something - what amazes me is that this was never planned for. What did the Coalition planners think would happen if they destroyed the leadership, army and police?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

An interesting development - it appears 9although this is in no way official) that the US have formed their own weapon inspection team which will not make the UN happy I'm sure it'll lead to accusations of tainted evidence (if any is found):
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,935304,00.html

and the same article reports on Hans Blix making his views clear (he was clearly biting his tongue in the build up to the war):

quote:

---

Last night the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, added his criticism by saying that war against Iraq was a foregone conclusion months before the first shot was fired.

In a scathing attack on Britain and the US, Mr Blix accused them of planning the war "well in advance" and of "fabricating" evidence against Iraq to justify their campaign.

Mr Blix told the Spanish daily El Pais: "There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance. Sometimes this raises doubts about their attitude to the [weapons] inspections."

He said Iraq was paying "a very high price _ in terms of human lives and the destruction of a country" when the threat of banned weapons could have been contained by UN inspections.

---

see also:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,935251,00.html
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30800-1087079,00.html

and the Ultimate Hans Blix fan page (what a strange world we live in):
www.cockeyed.com/hansblix/hans_first.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

imo, hans blix is a weasel. he constantly flip-flopped depending what the situation was. at one he admitted that iraq had no response to the inspections until millitary pressure began to build up in the region, at which point iraq started submitting tons of new documents. those documents, however, had little to no new evidence about their destruction of weapons.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

I've always looked at him as more of a harmless fluffy teddy bear.

He constantly amazed me at his outlook on this whole affair. Is he actually saying he surprised that the US and it's allies didn't intend to go in? I mean, they already knew what was there for him not to find for gosh sakes. Oh well. I still think he should be let back in to help out.

Two days ago, the Iraqis in Baghdad celebrated and held up signs saying Thank You USA.

The front page of today's paper shows an anti-American rally in Baghdad!

I say, lets find Sadam, put him back in power, and get the hell out of there!

Heh. Nope, can't do that...the cat's out of the bag...and you can't just stick it back in. That would be a political disaster for Mr. Bush and his administration, to do that. Like it or lump it, we'll have to stick it out until something is in place.

Or, start another war...to take the publics mind off of Iraq (worked beautifully with Afghanistan, didn't it?). Then you can do anything you want in Iraq...

briggl: LOL and we wondered where junior got it from

Its another case of 'at least the trains ran on time' - evil dictators have a lot going against them but they do tend to be pretty good at law and order and keeping the infrastructure working (otherwise they'd be toast within a week).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Yep, control has always been one quality of the despot that is rarely found lacking.

And more on the plundering of post-wr Iraq:

Article by Naomi Klein (also published in the Nation): www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,936158,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,936944,00.html

Klein makes an interesting point that most of the noise coming from the EU has been more along the lines of 'we want a slice of that cake too'.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

And an interesting poll:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/story/0,11030,937043,00.html

Support for war in the UK has really solidified although a lot of people do seem to think that it probably hasn't helped the world situation. I'm not sure what it demonstrates:

1. The British fighting spirit which moves rapidly on to a war footing.

2. Support for our boys in the Gulf.

3. People are sheep and are offering their retroactive support to a war that has already been won.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

The war has been won? Hmmm...I would say that many of the objectives have been reached...but wasn't this war originally about WMD? I thought we wanted to prevent WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists? And where is Saddam? And where is our democratic Iraq? And where, exactly, are these WMD? If they are still in Iraq, it's about high time we found them...before some terrorist group gets their hands on them (if they haven't already). Or maybe they just don't exist? In that case, it needs to be documented, and proved.

No, many objectives have been reached, that is true...but this is far from over. There are still threats, still unobtained objectives to be reached...where is the Iraqi army? Where are the regime leaders? Someone is going to have to go out and round them up, right?

Now, the Saddam regime has fallen...time to make sure that it remains fallen...remember Iran? And these armies just 'disappearing'...that is troublesome...where are they? They need to be found, and made harmless, before someone decides to do the opposite...re-organize them again. All these tribal warlords running about...hmmm...and what about those fanatical Saddam fighters, the Fedayen? They need to be found and neutralized.

Also, something has to be done about re-installing a minimum of law and order, so that the humanitarian measures can begin.

Accomplish these remaining objectives, and then we are done...the military can mostly go home. Then we can say 'we won'.

WS: Sorry it was a little tongue in cheek as I'd already stated my opinion on whether the war was over

WMD? Well I think it is just plain rude to ask about such things!! Anyway they are are in Syria/Iran/China/North Korea - delete those countries who aren't being lined up to be next.

I probably mentioned it (probably about 5 posts above this one) but there was an interview with Jack Straw on the BBC news and it went something like:

Q: So it was all about regime change in the end

A: No it was about WMD

and I was sitting there waiting for the interviewer to pull him up on this one but they never did.

I'm sure evidence of WMD will be found but the "we've taken the city, oh no we haven't" business has made an awful lot of people sceptical about any kinds of evidence so...... What suprises me is that they haven't been found or used already.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

No here is something interesting - Abu Abbas has been arrested in Iraq (I'd love to give him a swift kick):
www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,937878,00.html

It looks like an anonymous individual has put up cash in the region of 6 figures to set up a team to help get back the looted Iraqi archaeological treasures:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,937701,00.html

This strikes me as a 'worrying' development:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,937620,00.html

it appears the Shias (who didn't send representatives to the big meeting yesterday) don't want any part of the democracy we are going to introduce which could prove tricky if southern Iraq want to go their own way with support from Iran.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Yuppers, Emps, been folowing those stories closely...especially the Shias. That could quickly turn into a huge problem...no doubt about it.

The case with the Museum, is a tragic one...and one that has legal consequences, under the Geneva convention. Apparently, the Bush administration was aware of this, and decided not to do anything about it. This is hard to reconciliate, actually. Even Saddam didn't touch the Museum...reminds me of the Taliban in Afghanistan, when they blew up that Buhddist Statue...it's just another nail in the coffin...without WMD, this could get...discerning, IMHO.

As for that terrorist, I hope he does get sent to Greece...they really want him bad, it seems...I'm glad that they caught him. I still don't see the connection to Al Qaida there, however...moreover, to the Palastinians...and we already knew that Saddam was supporting them. Just like the Syrians, and Iran...the list is long...nothing new there.

The looting of the museum was a tragedy. Order is being restored but it's a shame that the Iraqis would loot their own national treasures. I'm glad to see that we're working with the civil authorities and having joint policing going on in Baghdad. That is a very encouraging development and an indication that we are serious about getting this country back into the hands of its rightful owners.

The ethnic unrest is, as we have always known, going to be a huge challenge. We basically have 3 major groups in Iraq, none of which are real fond of each other -- Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias.

I heard a very interesting analysis yesterday about the absolute need to set up a *constitutional* government and not simply democratic elections. This is so crucial because of the ethnic diversity. The rights of the minorities *must* be protected by a constitution or we could have a very ugly problem down the line.

Case in point, Turkey has recently elected Islamists yet there is stability because the government is based in a constition which guarantees some level of protection against one faction taking over. In fact, it was the Islamist faction that was in favor of us basing ground troops in that country, ironic as that sounds. Thanks to the pressure by the French and their allies on Turkey, the option of attacking from the North was blocked.

Abul Abbas! Do you guys remember Leon Klinghoffer and the Achille Lauro? And they call us cowards for attacking Afghanistan and Iraq? Abul Abbas and his associates killed and attacked an American in a wheel chair for gosh sakes! WS, the Iraqi links to international terrorism are becoming more apparent with each passing day. I would say at this point that even if there was no direct link between Osama and Hussein, the evidence that Hussein has been funding, training, and harboring (Abbas) terrorists counts heavily on that criteria for going in there.

Hey, at least we can agree this is one perpetrator that needed to come to justice.

They just found that 25 acre terrorist training center where suicide bombing was right on the cirriculum.

WS, a question for you my friend. You have been very critical of the way the war was conducted. I have been content to hear you out as to your reasoning and I will admit that I learned much from your words and respected your opinions. I know the war did not go as planned but here's the question. Will you agree with David "Hack" Hackworth that the war plan was brilliant except that the plan did not go as planned *however*, the troops did an utterly amazing job and the war has been a success up to this point?

quote:

---

The outcome of this war was never in doubt. Picture Paul Bunyan going after an anthill with a 16-pound sledge. The ants ? like the Iraqi army ? wouldn't have a prayer. At the start of the conflict, I estimated on ?Larry King Live? that it would be ?a four-week war? to take down Saddam. I also said I thought it was reckless of SecDef Donald Rumsfeld to have the 3rd penetrate so deeply without the powerful 4th Mechanized Division on its flank.

But probably because soldiers who've met the elephant a whole bunch of times tend to safe-side the risks to our soldiers, I was off on the initial number of combat ground forces required. For sure I also didn't fully figure on the amazing boldness, fighting spirit and hard-hitting professionalism of the 3rd.

---

A Mean, Green Machine

Actually, WS, upon your recommendation I am reading more what Hack has to say these days. I respect him highly.

Well, after the first disasterous moves under whatever Mr. Rumsfeld called his little 'plan', the switch to Overwhelming Force sure did the trick...but then, I predicted that it would (see the beginning of the thread).

Actually, militarily speaking, the outcome was never in doubt...however, casualties did rise, because of Overwhelming Force, esp. among the civilians...and the Iraqi Army (if the official counts can be believed).

You must remember (and never forget this point), that Generals always say that things are going according to plan...because Generals (and military planners) speak in terms of objectives. Consider that to be like setting goals, if you like. Thus, irregardless of how it goes (unless one totally loses, of course), everything is going according to plan.

Generals never speak in terms of time, or losses...only in terms of objectives. So, what does that say about the conflict, in general? That it went according to plan, of course...

No, a breakdown of what worked, and what didn't work, that is something totally different. We know that the 'lightning strike' didn't work...otherwise, Saddam would have fallen much earlier, of course. Time delays are always signs of something not going according to plan (called changes to the plan). We also know, that sending in the Apaches was not a sound idea...they got shot up pretty badly (thankfully, more didn't go down...an attest to the toughness of those machines). We also know that over-extending the supply lines is risky...and we suffered casualties because of it - Mr. Rumsfeld, again. We were lucky that the Iraqis failed to really capitalize on this.

Now, why the importance of listing these (and other) things? Because other nations are doing it, as well...especially China (they actually had 'observers' in the area). This is very important to note - because no-one has yet to succeessfully defend themselves from the American version of Overwhelming Force...I suspect that military strategists the world over are examining the Iraq conflict very closely, looking for ways to achieve just that...and we need to do the same, to counteract this.

I too, am happy that the guy is in our hands...who wouldn't be? But it is making a moutain out of a mole hill, really...he is not Bin Laden. Now that would have justified Iraq in my eyes...as for the training grounds for suicide bombers, I largely suspect that it was for the Feyheeden, or whatever they are called...Saddams fanatic soldiers...I don't think it was in use before...especially not for the export of terrorism...finding actual cells of Al Qaida, or papers leading in that direction, etc...that would be different. On that, we could agree.

And yes, I remember that, clearly...but the Palastinians stopped doing that sort of terrorism, awhile ago.

The museum...who ever said that Iraqis looted it? Who really knows who looted it? I haven't seen any evidence, whatsoever on who looted it...have you? Point is, whoever it was, it looks like they may have been profis...doesn't much sound like wild looters, to me...carrying off very heavy things, and identifying valuable things from semi- and non-valuable things, are signs of profi work. But who knows...maybe some of the stuff will get returned...we will see...and they moved fast, too. All signs of profis...but then, I don't really know. Maybe afterwards, 'wild' looters then plundered the place...reports are hard to judge...if there were profis at work, I don't think they got caught on camera...probably did it at night.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-16-2003).]

WS, what is your personal opinion of David Hackworth?

A couple of interesting things:

I mentioned the main plank of the British evidence for Iraq's WMD was forged and Seymour Hersh had an article in the latest New Yorker on this - summarised here:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200304060104.html

The lastest Private Eye magazine asked the UK government for their comments on this and while sidestepping the main points (which was that Hersh reckoned MI6 forged them) they did try to claim that their documents were real and the IAEA's documents were different and they were the forgeries - too many questions raised there

Also the US are asking for the sanctions to be rmeoved:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2954485.stm

and nice humaitarian gesture on the surface but largely uneccesary as aid agencies are all ready to rbing medcine and food into the country once there is order and the sanctions can't be removed until it has been shown that all Saddam's WMD have been destroyed (if they are all gone and the Coalition haven't foudn any then drawn your own conclusions). So why then? Its because as long as the sanctions stand the UN nominally control the oil in Iraq - once the sanctions are gone the Coalition get there hands on them.

Its not all about the oil but.........

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emps, I think that is phrased, "it's not only about the oil" Like I said a while back, oil fuels our economy and our economy fuels the world's. It's a vital commodity and it could not be allowed to come under control of Hussein especially considering his expansionism.

^^ Expansionism??

Ummm...which expansionism? As I recall, everytime he tried it (once...well, twice, actually, with American 'backing'), he lost. Doesn't take a genuis to get the hint. point is, he was 'encouraged' to do it, then blasted (once by Iran, once by...a coalition of forces). That's not real expansionism, in my eyes...

As for your friend...well, much like me, we sit back as 'armchair' Generals, and try to make sense of the total lack of information, the best we can. We are forced to rely on little 'clues'...and tidbits of information...it is not surprising, that anyone would come to the same conclusion, given that. My point is this : at this point, I don't have enough real information, to make a detailed analysis of the entire conflict, because I don't have the necessary information...for example, where were these units when, and what were the conditions that they were facing? What decisions were being made, when, and who was making them?

I largely suspect (maybe because of the embedded reporters, I hope so) that this information will become available later...

So I can't really say anything about your friend, except that at least he can analyse data effectively...that which we had to analyse, that is.

I have many unanswered questions...such as why that route (that the forces took), why the 'Turkey' option...and something you said...that France had 'pressured' Turkey...got some evidence of that? I hear a different tune, here in Germany...

As for how our troops actually were in combat, that I also do not know...it's just hard to say...one thing though...the incidents of 'friendly' fire were to high (I think we can agree on that)...especially the shooting down of British warplanes (The Iraqis didn't have an airforce!). Now, as I recall, our tracers (those light bullets) are a different color as those of the Iraqis...so that should have been immediately obvious, to any commander (and/or soldier). So, if you see green, it's allied fire! In this day and age, of almost instantaneous communication among coalition forces, such incidents should have been obvious...not to mention the Generals and planners have almost the exact location of all troops at all times (GPS is marvolous!).

As you can see, there are many unanswered questions...I won't even go into the civilian casualties...we will probably never have that information...it seems that the White House and the Pentagon want to sweep that under the rug permanently. And our troops were badly prepared for the eventuality that the iraqis would resist, on all levels...thus, the 'surprise' effect, of Iraqis 'surrendering', then opening fire, killing and wounding our surprised soldiers. There are no 'nice' wars...

And after reading that article that you posted green, mean machine, I have come to some conclusions - one, he doesn't go into detail on the mistakes, and the costs to American lives that it entailed. I find that uncomfortable, not to mention his 'glorifying' of combat...and he doesn't mention the mental anguish that the toops have suffered, due to killing women and children...

He paints a pretty picture, on a dirty, nasty business...I find that offensive, actually.

And finally, a note regarding the terrorist here : Terrorist's arrest stirs questions on threat, legal status. Which just about explains my view on this...mostly inactive, given amnesty by Israel, and hasn't done much in the way of terrorism in awhile. I would love to see any connection proof to Al Qaida, however...supposedly, there were (or are) 150 of them in Iraq. So, find and present proof of this...



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-17-2003).]

Bugs: Well that is scarey would you find more oil-based expansionism OK?

Anyway this is an interesting article:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,939535,00.html

Basically the British parliament has cross-party committees of MPs who look into various specific aspects (so of them with a broad remit and some of the designed to look at specific issues. In the run up to the war the Commons Intelligence and Security Committee was shown a lot of classified evidence which allegedly strengthened the case for war in Iraq and their vouching for this evidence which couldn't be widely circulated helped swing quite a few votes. Questions are now being asked (partly in relation to the forged documents mentioned above) about whether the committee was seriously misled and by whom.

They also make an intersting point about the lack of WMD and the the problems this might have with the legality of the war.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I just come back from hollidays. During a week, I voluntarily avoided listening to the news. The break was agreadable. However, on the way back to home, I turned on the radio and what I heard saddened me.

I heard that the US governement was planning "measures" against France because of his refusal to approve the war in Iraq. When I heard that, I really began to wonder if the USA were lead either by a child or a monkey. This type of behavior is, in my opinion, characterizing well the actual governement. I can bear goverments taking decisions opposed to my views. I can bear stupid people. But now, frankly, this is too much for me. I don't know who is responsible for this type of behavior, if it is Mr Bush or his governement. Anyway, you will never get me to say that is not childish or foolish.

I'm sorry if this a bit off-topic here but I couldn't post it at the good time. I won't expand myself anymore on this subject, as I think you probably know my opinion.

Also a bit off-topic :

During the hollidays, I have a read a book by Norman Spinrad. Norman Spinrad is an American novelist. He exiled himself in Paris for two reasons. First, every money he earns in the USA, every dollar and every cent, by his autor rights, are took by the governement. And then he is censored. That's why he lives in France where he has the state of politic exiled. He made a preface in one of his book that is, I must say, fantastic. It is about America, and its relationships with the rest of the world. This text changed many of my opinions. It is in French and quite long, that's why I didn't translated it here. I also searched for it on Internet but I didn't find it. So, if someday you go in a library, I really really really advise you to read the preface of the novel titled : "Other Americas". It was written a few years ago (1988), but it extremly accurate in our world situation nowadays.

Globally, I can sum it up in this way : America is still the most powerful country in the world. One of the reason why nowadays it is so highly critiscized, so highly hated, is that America lost it ideal. America in the past was an ideal, from the past centuries (democracy...), to the actual days (the American dream). Now that it is lost... Just look at the international situation.

I sumed it up shortly, it may appear a bit raw, but the full text was wonderful. Sorry if this was a bit off-topic, but as it is bound to the international relations I thought I could post it here.

It seems the US will keep bases in Iraq:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940405,00.html

and more on US bases elsewhere:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940414,00.html

[edit: and the reaction of the Iraqi people:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/voices/story/0,12820,940520,00.html

quote:

---

"The people of Tikrit are like the rest of Iraq. They hated Saddam Hussein. I want to kill him," the 28-year-old cafe-owner spat out his words. But as lorry-loads of US Marines trundled through the arch, he switched focus: "This is an occupation. Nothing else. We will keep quiet for a year and if they have not gone we will kill them."

---

if I was the US I'd be looking to hand over to the UN asap]

Somehow I can't see this improving the problems with the US being seen as an occupying force (rather than liberators) both in Iraq and elsewhere.

This is an update on the incident where a tank fired on the media hotel:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940465,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor