The Iraq War [Archive] - HawaiiThreads.com

pzarquon

August 12th, 2004, 08:27 AM

I guess since it's the Washington Post, they've gotta do it right, but really... media handwringing and self-flagellation over "we should have asked more questions" was so six months ago.

The thing that strikes me, and I think my wife was making the same point, is that in a way, the administration has won a lot of the battle by framing the debate and limiting it to, "Did we go into Iraq for the right reasons, and does it matter since Saddam's gone?"

You have to step back and remember that they had us on a roll after 9/11 and stormed into Afghanistan, and basically seem to have decided to cash in a 2-for-1 "war mandate coupon" to take down Saddam as well. We hadn't come anywhere near finishing the job on the first battlefield - we're still on the ground there, overwhelmed by the enormity of that mission. So. We're still searching for our 9/11 mastermind (unless you subscribe to "October Surprise (http://www.alternet.org/election04/19500/)" conspiracy theories) and trying to keep Afghanistan under control, and also still in the middle of it all in Iraq (despite handing over a piece of paper (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.handover/) in a rushed, subdued ceremony).

And honestly, I might even give 'em the benefit of the doubt, and say, Iraq was a problem, and Saddam had it in for America (after all, our current president's father came gunning for him before), and he might have maybe been able to think about possibly considering a study to implement "weapons of mass destruction related program activities (http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/weapons_of_mass_destructionrelated_program_activit ies.php)," so lets liberate some people (and get some oil), woohoo!

But there's been that whole pesky North Korea problem all this time, and of all things, Bush is now looking to pick a fight with Iran (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/28820.htm). "Oops, sorry, wrong country (again)!" Our nation has a huge deficit, our workforce is withering, and we've burned nearly every bridge to the outside world, and they're still looking to push folks around?

So I can't see Iraq as a decision that had to be made. It's part of a broader philosophy of relentless and unilateral imposition of our will on the rest of the world. Given that underlying motive, while the jury's still out on what good taking Saddam out has done, there's no question in my mind that - at best - we did the right thing (1.) for the wrong reasons, and (2.) in a wrongheaded way.

Albert

August 12th, 2004, 09:28 AM

I don't think the USA should take any part in "pre-emptive" wars.

We'd have a hell of a lot more reason to invade Sudan right now than we had to invade Iraq. But then we're talking human lives, not oil.

Karen

August 12th, 2004, 10:11 AM

Yes, it remains we "should have gone in." Should we have received more support? Yes! were we wrong to have gone in without it? No. It is on record that France had supplied some things to Saddam in the recent few years, so no wonder they didn't support our going in. Heck, I can't even recall the other nation that refused us, that we have found weapons from, upon going in ourselves, but no wonder some refused.

The Iraqi people say they are better off, and no, one can't speak for EVERY single one of them, anymore than you can get all Americans to agree on any issue. Our troops are telling, even this week, yes, stories of how they are given gifts, and well-received in various parts of Iraq. their biggest hesitation is that they want to know saddam's fate, will he get the death penalty, of could he live, to someday be free again, and harm their children, if not them.

Was the claim of WMDs overstated, and if so, WHY? was it a lieing administration, or faulty intelligence? (if faulty intelligence, uh oh, is our intelligence better, now? if not, does this mean we are in even greater danger than we think, here in the homeland, because our intel. just can't do a good enough job? if so...sigh....how do we fix this?)

There is still another possibility, concerning the WMD claim. Was it really the main reason to go in? Oil, you say? really? how is their oil benefitting us? It is being sold, but the Iraqis are getting the money for it, not the Bush family (G) nor our own govt. so why was oil the main reason, IF it was? If not, is it possible that toppling the madman, saddam and his whacked out sons WAS the main reason, but our govt. used the WMDs for the main reason? Does ANY govt. ever tell us the whole truth about any operation, and furthermore SHOULD they, if not? (sorry, but all valid questions, even though it's a lot to reply to, I hope some bother to)

Is it possible that it was a combination of things that made Bush decide to go in? Intel that truly did make it look like there were WMDs, plus freeing the Iraqi people, etc. Deny it all one may wish to, the Iraqi people ARE free now, they say they are, just as the Iraqi prize fighter that I saw on KGMB twice, and he spoke for all of his relatives and a host of friends "back home" in Iraq. He is about saddam's age, and even went to school with him while growing up, then knew him since he was a prize fighter in their country, which by the way may be the only reason he lived unscathed. He spoke 100% positive of what we did, "by going in."

I get email reports regularly, from Iraq. the 2 people I currently know that are there report that we are very appreciated there, and when not, it is those that have entered Iraq, dressed like Iraqis and are fighting to try and make it look like they want us out, as Iraqis when it is a lie. Neighboring countries that hate us a lot, and terrorists dedicated to doing more of what was done on 9-11, are there, to create instability and try to scare even the Iraqis into MAKING us leave, and with their sovereignty, they CAN do this.

WMDs....were they moved into a neighboring country inbetween visits by the UN inspectors? WEll duh, had I been saddam, that is precisely what I would have done, and there are rumors "over there" that say saddam did just that.

Bush's biggest mistake probably was publicly saying that WMDs were the "main" reason he was going in! Was this mistake one he could have, therefore should have, avoided? Doubtfully since the Intel. was, by all accounts, not as good as it was believed to have been.

Is it, right now, good we went in? Depends upon how much you care about the Iraqis, or stability in that region. saddam will never march on another country there, unless the unthinkable happens, if he lives AND goes free. The Iraqis say we did a wonderful thing, while they hug our troops, feed them right inside their own homes, while giving them gifts.

What now? we stay until they have elections, install their govt. until they say they have a military and police that can protect their people, and bottom line, we stay until they tell us to leave. THEY, as a collective, voting society, NOT as the oppressed people that honestly were tortured, abused, killed and lived in literal fear.

Yes, much good has been done over there. I read that their own sale of oils will rebuild their country. This better be true, no matter who sits in our white house.

In an earlier thread (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=1867), my wife said:Karen responded:So let's tackle the Iraq War and subsequent occupation and efforts to build democracy here.

Should we have gone in? Should we have gone in with more international support? Is Iraq better now that it was two years ago, and is the U.S. safer? Were WMD claims overstated, or a reasonable conclusion, and is their absence now irrelevant given other objectives and accomplishments?

Have at it!

pzarquon

October 5th, 2004, 02:04 PM

What an odd couple of new entries in the "Deconstructing Iraq" curriculum.

L. Paul Bremer, former U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, said "we paid a big price" for not having enough troops on the ground when Saddam was toppled. He made similar remarks about troop levels when he was speaking in Indiana. He claims he "raised this issue a number of times with our government," and when he was rebuffed, he said he "should have been even more insistent."

He issued a formal statement later to clarify: he was always for regime change, and that he thinks troop levels are fine, now. Of course, that doesn't undermine his original point, which was the chaos that immediately followed Saddam's ouster was one of the major reasons things ultimately spiraled out of control as far as they have.

Donald Rumsfeld, meanwhile, surprised some when he seemed to admit flatly that "the intelligence proved wrong" on WMDs, and in the same appearance, affirmed what most people have concluded when it comes to supposed links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, saying he had "not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

He issued a formal statement later to clarify: Actually, we think there are links, and always did. It seemed a particularly important correction to make, since by saying there wasn't a connection, he'd be contradicting an assertion Dick Cheney has been freely making all summer.

What on earth is going on? Where are these guys' "handlers"? It seems folks are having trouble sticking to their carefully crafted talking points all of a sudden.

Glen Miyashiro

October 5th, 2004, 02:09 PM

What on earth is going on? Where are these guys' "handlers"? It seems folks are having trouble sticking to their carefully crafted talking points all of a sudden.
Perhaps the Republican establishment has realized what a turkey they've gotten with Bush, written him off as a lost cause, and started positioning for the 2008 campaign. :D

Mocha

October 5th, 2004, 02:25 PM

In regards to the Iraq war...what will Mr. Kerry do if elected? I know he'll inherit the "mess" but how will he make it right. I really feel for people who have relatives that have been killed in Iraq or the surrounding areas that have unrest.
A friend of ours was to spend her honeymoon here but having been in Saudi Arabia for a year and experiencing the terrible sand storms she changed her mind and went to Europe instead...no more sand for a while. How do we "fix" the wrong? :( Is there a right way? Seeing the unhappy families that are torn apart because of the war...not a happy time at all.

pzarquon

October 5th, 2004, 03:02 PM

Broadly speaking, I know Kerry has (1.) stated withdrawal is a priority, and will be accomplished if he can better internationalize the mission in Iraq (i.e. starting to bring troops home in six weeks, and being essentially out of Iraq in his first term), but realistically, (2.) advocating strengthening and growing our military, sending more troops if they're needed.

His speech in April (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html) is the nearest thing to a full outline of his Iraq plan.
As complicated as Iraq seems, there are really only three basic options: One, we can continue to do this largely by ourselves and hope more of the same works; Two, we can conclude it’s not doable, pull out and hope against hope that the worst doesn’t happen in Iraq; Or three, we can get the Iraqi people and the world’s major powers invested with us in building Iraq’s future.

Mistakes have complicated our mission and jeopardized our objective of a stable free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders. We may have differences about how we went into Iraq, but we do not have the choice just to pick up and leave—and leave behind a failed state and a new haven for terrorists.

I believe that failure is not an option in Iraq. But it is also true that failure is not an excuse for more of the same. Here is how we must proceed...
It is indeed heavily dependent on rebuilding alliances with other nations, and while I can see how that might be difficult or even unlikely, I also agree there aren't too many other options if we don't want to "go it alone."

Make no mistake, "finishing the job" in Iraq will be tough, whether it's Bush or Kerry at the helm. The longer it takes, the harder it will be for the American people to see the wisdom of occupation, and even I see that as a problem, insofar as it is our troops struggling and dying over there, and they need all the support they can get.

Miulang

October 5th, 2004, 07:43 PM

Konaguy

October 5th, 2004, 08:13 PM

I personally believe all along it is was big mistake that we invaded
Iraq. None of the justifications for war were legit. Where was
the WMD ? Where were these supposed connections to Al Qaeda ?
Why does it look like this invasion was done for the financial
benefit of a few people ? Now we are stuck in a muddled mess where different factional ethnic groups are fighting for control of the country.

If Bush is re-elected I forsee more military action against rogue
nations like in the case of Iraq. Thus stretching our military
and world opinion farther into the toliet.

Linkmeister

October 5th, 2004, 09:40 PM

One refreshing out of the box way of thinking about how we can train the Iraqis to take care of themselves and thus ensure our withdrawal from combat that I've heard recently is the notion that maybe we don't have to train those people in Iraq, where both our troops (the teachers) and the Iraqis (the students) are in peril every day?

What if we could train them in other countries who are part of the coalition? That could be their contribution to the war effort. Would that not solve 3 problems: 1) fewer of our troops would be hurt and 2) you still accomplish the goal of training the Iraqis, and 3) hold our allies to their pledge to support us?

Could we pull something like this off logistically?

Miulang

I don't recall if Kerry has mentioned this, but Edwards has (maybe tonight in the debate; I just recall him suggesting it, possibly to take place in Jordan). That would also get an Arab country "on side," which surely couldn't hurt. I have no clue what the response from any Arab country might be, but what the heck, it's worth a shot.

Miulang

October 6th, 2004, 10:23 AM

Karen and other rabid Bush supporters: Please DO NOT go to the following link as it will put you into apoplectic fits after reading it. This British economist likens the current war in Iraq to a sporting event with a propaganda machine (psyops) aimed directly at deceiving the American public.

Here: http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij05142003.html

Miulang

Miulang

October 6th, 2004, 05:29 PM

To all the Republican loyalists: what are the rest of us supposed to make of the latest (today) reports from the chief US arms inspector in Iraq that there is absolutely no evidence that Iraq had any WMDs since 1992? Would you like to tell us that the Dems and anti-Bush people somehow got to the people who did the investigation? Inquiring minds want to know...

Miulang

Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/politics/07intel.html

Konaguy

October 6th, 2004, 07:15 PM

To all the Republican loyalists: what are the rest of us supposed to make of the latest (today) reports from the chief US arms inspector in Iraq that there is absolutely no evidence that Iraq had any WMDs since 1992?

I already know the answer, as I have heard it before.
The supposed WMD's were smuggled out of the country
to Syria etc. Which is bunch of rubbish IMHO.

Miulang

October 10th, 2004, 06:08 PM

So Rummy swooped down into the midst of about 1,500 of our Marines fighting in Iraq yesterday. His surprise visit was marked by the arrival of a gaggle (or whatever they call a whole bunch of 'em) of Black Hawk helicopters flying thisclosetotheground and zigzagging to avoid insurgent fire.

Prior to his "surprise" arrival, the COs made sure that their charges didn't ask Rummy the biiiiig question: "When can we go home?" Rummy, who has remained pretty much incommunicado the last few months (gee, I wonder if the Congressional hearings had anything to do with that? :rolleyes: ), did tell the loyal troops that it was very unlikely that anybody would be going home before the Iraq elections. The big IFs are if we can train another 50,000 Iraqis to defend their own country and IF there is no increased violence surrounding the elections which are scheduled in January.

Look, I think everyone is conceding now that whether or not we should have gone to war with Iraq, now that we're there, we have to establish a workable peace to stabilize that area of the world. Unequivocally, no pulling out our troops until that happens. Neither Bush nor Kerry has really presented a concrete plan for bringing the troops home in a timely manner. All the chest beating and teeth gnashing without any concrete plans that neither party can disclose to the voters means more and more of our troops become cannon fodder. We're there; let's do what it takes to stabilize things and then get the hell out. We don't need to be every country's savior. We have enough problems with our own economy and health care to fix in this country.

Miulang

Miulang

October 13th, 2004, 10:11 AM

Interesting take on the U.S. Presidential elections and its relationship to British PM Blair from a columnist at the Iran Daily:

Blair and US Elections By Soheil Mohajer

While less than three weeks to the US presidential elections, the British Labour Party under Tony Blair has yet not taken a public stance over the two candidates.
If global conditions today were like four years ago when George Bush and Democratic contender Al Gore vied for the White House, Labour would obviously supported the Democratic Party and let the Tories take sides with the neoconservative Republican Party. But, times and events have changed since then.
In 1997, Britain's Labor Party managed to unseat the Tory conservatives after 18 years. Former US President Bill Clinton had then welcomed the change.
However, the Sept. 11 attacks on America and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq during which London openly backed the Bush regime under the pretext of fighting international terrorism, have led to visible shifts within the ruling Labour Party in the same way that global equations have changed ever since.
Today it would be fair to say that as the Iraqi situation goes from bad to worse, nobody could separate Bush from Blair. Bonds between the two leaders are such that the mass media in both countries refer to Bush and Blair as blood brothers!
When Senator John Kerry was nominated by the Democrats to contest the Nov. 2 vote, Blair refused to call Kerry and congratulate him as the leader of the party that shares almost the same values as Labour on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Blair's action, or the lack of it, upset the Democratic top brass in Washington.
Many analysts share the belief that Clinton's presidency was a key external factor that helped bring Blair's party to power after two decades.
At any rate, it is highly unlikely that Kerry's victory over the controversial and embattled American president next month will add to Blair's political weight or whatever is left of it.
In fact, some experts maintain that if Kerry gets the White House, Blair's position will be further weakened and Labour credibility will be undermined. The conditions will be more difficult for the pro-war Blair government because he is expected to call for elections next year.
However, based on recent surveys, Blair has a better chance of winning the general election than Bush getting a second term. Many observers say if Bush is defeated and the Tories lose the next general elections, differences within Labour will mount amid calls for replacing Blair with Gordon Brown.
Apart from ambitions and dreams, perhaps those members of the Labour Party who support Kerry and are loyal to Blair would prefer that Kerry get elected so that they can declare the Anglo-Saxon "mission" in Iraq has ended and thereby keep US-UK ties on track under Blair's leadership. Of course, such a scenario is possible. But it is not something Blair would bet on.

Miulang

October 13th, 2004, 11:32 AM

This article comes from truthout.com in which Gary Sick, who worked on the National Security Council under Pres. Ford, Carter and Reagan describes the current "Bush Doctrine" of foreign policy and why America has lost credibility around the world in this arena http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101304L.shtml (http://):

Miulang

Miulang

October 15th, 2004, 12:40 PM

Why would a bunch of loyal soldiers fighting in Iraq decide to mutiny and refuse to go into battle a few days ago? And more importantly, if there was no email and internet, would the US citizens even know that this happened?

Looks like there are a bunch of men and women in the armed forces who have decided that it is far more honorable to refuse an order than it is to rush into what they believe would have been a suicide mission!

More here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101604X.shtml

Miulang

Miulang

October 17th, 2004, 08:08 AM

Here's an interesting little tidbit from the Guardian UK about Iraqi war "reparations" from the 1991 Gulf War. Reparations to US companies who sustained financial losses at that time are finally getting paid. Lookee at who some of the payees are:

"Here is a small sample of who has been getting "reparation" awards from Iraq: Halliburton ($18m), Bechtel ($7m), Mobil ($2.3m), Shell ($1.6m), Nestlé ($2.6m), Pepsi ($3.8m), Philip Morris ($1.3m), Sheraton ($11m), Kentucky Fried Chicken ($321,000) and Toys R Us ($189,449). In the vast majority of cases, these corporations did not claim that Saddam's forces damaged their property in Kuwait - only that they "lost profits" or, in the case of American Express, experienced a "decline in business" because of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait. One of the biggest winners has been Texaco, which was awarded $505m in 1999. According to a UNCC spokesperson, only 12% of that reparation award has been paid, which means hundreds of millions more will have to come out of the coffers of post-Saddam Iraq..."

Why don't those companies just forgive Iraq for those payments and let Iraq use the money to help its own people? I mean, I'm sure the companies mentioned above had already written off their losses and gotten their tax credits. So the American (and one Swiss company--Nestle) are getting paid twice? What's wrong with this picture? :confused:

The complete story here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1328887,00.html

Miulang

Miulang

October 17th, 2004, 03:01 PM

According to this story by the Knight Ridder News Agency, the Bush Administration went into Iraq fully intending to "win the war against Saddam" but not having a single clue how to "win the peace". And so we have what--10 Americans dying this week alone, at the start of Ramadan, the highest holy event in all of Islam?

More here: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm

Miulang

Miulang

October 18th, 2004, 12:52 PM

More information is coming out about the platoon that refused to obey orders to deliver a shipment in Iraq last week. Sounds like the "isolated incident" the Army general command is quoted as saying actually could be said for most National Guard Reserve Units and the conditions they face...less than up to date equipment and less training than the regular troops. Imagine that...class discrimination in the Army! My feeling is if we can't equip the National Guard Reservists with the same equipment and give them the exact same training that we give to our regular troops, that the government has no business sending these people to possibly die. That's like trying to fight off an attacker who has a handgun with one hand tied behind your back and your free hand swinging a stick.

More here: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=LO0V0ZKY1WYGWCRBAEZSF FA?type=topNews&storyID=6530392

Miulang

Miulang

October 18th, 2004, 04:27 PM

Since our own government won't tell us how many troops we have in each region of Iraq, I guess we have to rely on the statistics provided by the Guardian-UK to know how many troops each of the committed countries in the "coalition" have on the ground in Iraq. We have what? 150,000 US soldiers there?

Deployment of Troops by Region

Baghdad:
30,000 foreign soldiers, mostly US; 32 Estonians at Abu Ghraib jail. Likely location for 650 troops from the Britain's Black Watch regiment.

Multinational Brigade North (inc Mosul, Arbil):
Around 11,500 Iraqi forces; 8,500 mostly US troops (Third Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division); South Korea (2,800).

North-Central Area:
US 1st Infantry; Georgia (150); Latvia (40); Moldova (30); Macedonia (30).

Western Area (inc Fallujah):
US 1st Marine Division; Azerbaijan (150); Tonga (45).

Center-South (inc Najaf):
Poland (2,350); Ukraine (1,550); Thailand (450); Bulgaria (420); Hungary (290); Romania (200); Mongolia (140); Latvia (110); Slovakia (110); Lithuania (50).

South-East (inc Basra):
UK (8,300, mainly 1st Mechanized Brigade); Italy (2,800); Netherlands (1,300); Japan (500); Romania (500); Denmark (400); Portugal (124); Czech Rep (90); Lithuania (60); NZ (60).

More story here: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=573216

Miulang

Miulang

October 21st, 2004, 02:55 PM

mcnabbmcnow

October 23rd, 2004, 07:27 PM

Here are soldiers' in Iraq opinions of who they support in the Presidential race. Notice that the higher in rank, the more likely they are to vote Republican. Lifers are also more likely to vote Republican. Any soldier who wants to vote Democrat has to be very quiet about it because of the harrassment he would get from his superiors.

So much for freedom to vote your conscience!

Miulang

More here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102204K.shtml

How do you explain that 73% of the military and their families, STILL are voting Republican this year? First off, the families aren't dealing with the peer pressure and why would anyone have to tell people who they are voting for? Couldn't they just vote Democrat and not tell any of their buddies? I think the military vote Republican because they understand the thugs we are dealing with, and the dangers to America. The danger isn't as real to us here.

Miulang

October 23rd, 2004, 08:12 PM

How do you explain that 73% of the military and their families, STILL are voting Republican this year? First off, the families aren't dealing with the peer pressure and why would anyone have to tell people who they are voting for? Couldn't they just vote Democrat and not tell any of their buddies? I think the military vote Republican because they understand the thugs we are dealing with, and the dangers to America. The danger isn't as real to us here.
It's called "peer pressure". Studies that have been done on the troops indicated that a lot of people volunteer to serve in the armed forces because they like the camaraderie of being intimately associated with a group of like-minded individuals can bring them. When a soldier is injured, more likely he will think about his "buddies" and "not letting my buddies down" rather than his own personal safety. For psychological reasons, it helps keep these people alive to know that someone is out there watching out for them.

However, if you deviate from the norm and have differing opinions, then you get subjected to hazing and peer pressure. Hence, the "don't ask/don't tell" policy of the armed forces. When someone is "outted" for being gay, the consequences can be severe. Same thing with having a different political opinion. The armed forces have traditionally been Republican, anyway. The higher in rank the person, the more likely they are to be a Republican. Lifers in particular tend to vote Republican. So if my drill sergeant is telling me that he's for Bush, do you really think as a grunt I would beg to differ with him and let him know I thought Bush was a schmuck, especially if my life depended on his liking me? I don't think so.

Miulang

Miulang

October 23rd, 2004, 10:19 PM

Here's an interesting little tidbit that came across the Reuters newsline on Friday.

The International Republican Institute, a US-government-funded body that promotes democracy around the world and which is helping oversee efforts to build political parties in Iraq, conducted a survey among Iraqi to determine their support for the US-backed government of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

Although the majority of Iraqis still think that their lives will be better now that they are "free" of Saddam Hussein, the percentage who agree has dropped precipitiously (by 20 points) since the interim regime was installed in July.

Even more interesting is the fact that if the free elections were held today, Allawi would probably not be the front runner. He comes in second to Abdel Aziz Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution who 51% of the polled Iraqis said they wanted to have a seat in the new national assembly, which will pick the new government. Allawi was in second place with 47% and Moqtada al Sadr, the rebel, a close 3rd with 46%.

The conclusion that was reported was that Iraqi citizens trust their religious clerics more than their secular, nonreligious leaders.

In an AP interview last week (also reported in the Reuters article) President Bush said last week he would grudgingly accept a fundamentalist Islamic government: "I would be disappointed, but democracy is democracy," when he was asked whether Iraqis might prefer an Islamic government to secular rule. "If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose."

The survey also reported that "more than 45 percent of Iraqis believe their country is heading in the wrong direction, up from 31 percent 10 weeks ago; 55 percent do not believe the interim government represents their interests."

Reuters article here: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6585789

Miulang

pzarquon

October 24th, 2004, 01:16 PM

How do you explain that 73% of the military and their families, STILL are voting Republican this year? Almost as if on cue, the Honolulu Advertiser runs an article touching on the "third rail" of being a military family - holding a view contrary to the president (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Oct/24/ln/ln20p.html) or administration.
Although on the rise, military family criticism of the war in Iraq — publicly expressed — is still relatively rare. Military culture, tradition — even its laws — keep it that way... [and] "Even though there is nothing in the law that prevents military families from speaking out, it's certainly in the code, or culture," [Nancy Lessin] said from her home city of Boston. "That code basically says, in order to support the troops, you must support whatever activity they've been sent to engage in." I'm fully accepting of the fact that a strong majority of the people in the armed forces and their families are supportive of the president and his policies. I am curious, though, if the current level of suppressed opposition - the numbers of official actions taken against servicepeople who make the mistake of speaking critically - represents an increase over past conflicts. It certainly feels that way.

Linkmeister

October 24th, 2004, 02:16 PM

Konaguy

October 24th, 2004, 03:56 PM

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Oct/24/ln/ln20p.html

Military families criticize Iraq war

By William Cole
Advertiser Military Writer

Valencia Miller hadn't planned on speaking out publicly against the war in Iraq, but the emotion of the moment clearly got to her.

The 20-year-old, whose husband is in Afghanistan with the 25th Infantry Division (Light), had just heard from Fernando Suarez del Solar, a California man whose Marine son was killed in Iraq on March 27, 2003, when he stepped on a U.S. cluster bomb.

Suarez del Solar, a Mexican immigrant and now a vocal Iraq war opponent, said the military lied about how much his son would get paid and how he died, and tried to stiff the family on the full cost of his burial.

Miller, a student who initially attended Suarez del Solar's talk at Leeward Community College last week to get extra credit in a philosophy class, had her own terrifyingly defining moment.

She was with Jenaiece Fraise in June when a chaplain and officer knocked on the door and told Fraise that her husband, David, a 24-year-old Schofield Barracks corporal, had been killed when his Humvee hit a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. At that time, Jenaiece Fraise's baby was 5 months old.

pzarquon

October 24th, 2004, 05:36 PM

Aaron, that was the same article linked above. Not that it doesn't deserve to be read twice!

Konaguy

October 24th, 2004, 05:44 PM

Aaron, that was the same article linked above. Not that it doesn't deserve to be read twice!

Thats what I get for not reading the recent posts in the thread :(

Miulang

October 24th, 2004, 06:16 PM

Another interesting point to ponder: since the armed forces vote predominantly Republican, and since they must obey their Commander-in-Chief, what's going to happen if Kerry wins? Will there be mass defections among the ranks? Or will the soldiers who openly state they are Republican suck in their guts and follow orders from a (heaven forfend!) Democratic Commander-in-Chief?

My guess is that duty is duty, and honor is honor and they would pledge their allegiance to whoever the President was, no matter what political party is in power. :cool:

Miulang

Linkmeister

October 24th, 2004, 07:32 PM

I don't feel like cutting and pasting the entire post, so I'll just suggest you go over here (http://www.linkmeister.com/blog/archives/001103.html) and follow the link provided to find out just what other bits of incompetence and knavery the current Administration got up to post-Saddam.

Since I posted that at my place (that's where that link takes you) Josh Marshall has done some
further reporting (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com) on the subject of nuclear munitions disappearing due to Administration negligence.

Miulang

October 25th, 2004, 05:14 AM

Since I posted that at my place (that's where that link takes you) Josh Marshall has done some
further reporting (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com) on the subject of nuclear munitions disappearing due to Administration negligence.
Yeah, and didja hear the latest one about munitions being stolen from under our watch (not newkleer stuff, just regular explosives)? Seems that they can prove that what's been swiped from under our noses is also what's being used by the terrorists to kill Iraqis and soldiers! Hello, is anyone home??? :mad:

Miulang

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAQ?SITE=HIHAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Linkmeister

October 25th, 2004, 08:51 AM

Yeah, and didja hear the latest one about munitions being stolen from under our watch (not newkleer stuff, just regular explosives)? Seems that they can prove that what's been swiped from under our noses is also what's being used by the terrorists to kill Iraqis and soldiers! Hello, is anyone home??? :mad:

Miulang

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAQ?SITE=HIHAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Ahem. Click my links, you lazy buggah! :D

Miulang

October 25th, 2004, 11:23 AM

Sorry, eh? Actually, I'm 3 hours ahead of you guys and knew about this story around 5:15 this morning. Only found the corroborating evidence afta you wen go post da link, anden :)

Miulang

Linkmeister

October 25th, 2004, 11:55 AM

Sorry, eh? Actually, I'm 3 hours ahead of you guys and knew about this story around 5:15 this morning. Only found the corroborating evidence afta you wen go post da link, anden :)

Miulang

Grins. I posted my story at 1:40pm yesterday afternoon, and Josh Marshall was obviously earlier, since I linked to him.

Top that! :D

Seriously, this is about as gross an example on incompetence as I can imagine. The pretext for war was to find WMDs; so we leave a huge pile of RDX and HMX lying around unguarded, even though the IAEA knew about and told us about said pile? The stuff ain't nuclear, but it's the same material used for terrorist bombs all over the world, for cryin' out loud!

mcnabbmcnow

October 28th, 2004, 02:09 AM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

Very interesting article. Did the Russians work hand in hand with Iraq in moving deadly weapons to Syria? If this is true, Kerry's rush to judgement condemning Bush about the weapons could majorly backfire.

Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

craigwatanabe

October 28th, 2004, 10:27 AM

Okay...so if the Russians could move high explosives out of Iraq right under our noses, what can be said of (I know this is a long shot) WMD?

It is a bit suspect that Saddam could use WMD to take out the Kurds with chemical warfare but we can't seem to find any trace of it's plants anymore. Where did those facilities go? And we do know they had to exist in order to wipe out entire Kurdish villages. Now we're finding out the Russians helped move out all these explosives into Syria? What else is over there?

Don't be surprized if President Bush pulls out his trump card days before the election with hard evidence of WMD.

Even that would be hard for Kerry to overcome. I hope for Kerry he has a backup plan in case it happens because it sure wouldn't look good for him and for Bush, I think that's the only thing that'll save him and guarantee another four years.

Eh Miulang!!! You stay so busy on dis board you no write back to me you buggah! I wen send the beans to you already! Maybe I should have the Russians send the papayas to you. If they can give the US the slip with explosives, I'm sure they can do the same with papayas and the ag inspectors. :D So sorry if you like papayas you going have to come visit my homestead in Kea'au. :)

Miulang

October 31st, 2004, 08:43 AM

Eh Miulang!!! You stay so busy on dis board you no write back to me you buggah! I wen send the beans to you already! Maybe I should have the Russians send the papayas to you. If they can give the US the slip with explosives, I'm sure they can do the same with papayas and the ag inspectors. :D So sorry if you like papayas you going have to come visit my homestead in Kea'au. :)
Eh Craig! No get all huhu! I wen get da coffee and da odda kine stuffs Friday. Sorry took me so long to get back to you, but I was "incommunicado" from work, da phone and da computer since Wednesday afternoon until today.

While I was in flat in bed, though, I was able to watch TV the other day (nothing else to do) but sleep with the cats) and saw some of that Pentagon press conference that supposedly explained what happened to that missing 380 tons of munitions. Even in my delirium, I could see that the Maj. who was speaking (I think he was in charge of securing the area in which the dump was a part) really wanted to tell the truth, but the black suited DOD mouthpiece next to him was ready to pounce on him if he said the wrong thing. The outcome of the whole press conference was that some of the munitions that was blown up under this guy's command might have been part of the missing shipment, although interestingly, he said he didn't remember seeing those IAEA tags that identified the armaments as having been itemized by the IAEA. And even if part of the blown up munitions were from that missing storage, the Maj. said only about 250 tons were detonated. So where's the other 130 tons? And that DOD mouthpiece assured the reporters that the Defense Department was investigating the matter more fully.

Yeah, and the answer will be delivered to us sometime in 2005. In the meantime 8 soldiers were blown up yesterday by a roadside bomb outside of Fallujah, and the US is getting ready to mount a full attack on that city. Too bad al-Zaqawi is far far away from there now. All they'll blow up is more innocent women and children.

Miulang

Linkmeister

October 31st, 2004, 12:44 PM

Josh Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com) has been all over the munitions story, if you're interested.

Miulang

October 31st, 2004, 05:56 PM

This is currently posted on Salon.com, but you can't get to it unless you are a subscriber or yawn through some advertising, so begging your indulgence, below is the latest from Gen. Colin Powell. What he told his friends and that which is being reported by Newsweek and Salon.com will definitely be discredited by The Bush Administration, because Colin Powell is on his way out of the Administration. There will no longer be at least one dissenting voice in that Cabinet to try to bring reason to this madness. To Gen. Powell, I say: "Thank you for serving your country the best you could, under the most trying of circumstances." If he ever came back to run for public office, regardless of which Party who chose to run for, I would back him implicitly. He is a man of honor, courage, high integrity and someone who, like Hawaii's own Gen. Eric Shinseki, tried to tell people to start asking questions before it was too late. And if he is right, and with the battle of Fallujah planned to start sometime in the next couple of days, we will see whether his prophecy rings true. If he is correct, then we will never know who our "friends" and our "enemies" are as our troops head off to certain slaughter. It's bad enough when you know who the enemy is, but when the people you trained to be "friends" start firing at you, too, what are you supposed to do?

Miulang

Colin Powell believes U.S. is losing Iraq war

Secretary of State Colin Powell has privately confided to friends in recent weeks that the Iraqi insurgents are winning the war, according to Newsweek. The insurgents have succeeded in infiltrating Iraqi forces "from top to bottom," a senior Iraqi official tells Newsweek in tomorrow’s issue of the magazine, "from decision making to the lower levels."

This is a particularly troubling development for the U.S. military, as it prepares to launch an all-out assault on the insurgent strongholds of Fallujah and Ramadi, since U.S. Marines were counting on the newly trained Iraqi forces to assist in the assault. Newsweek reports that "American military trainers have been frantically trying to assemble sufficient Iraqi troops" to fight alongside them and that they are "praying that the soldiers perform better than last April, when two battalions of poorly trained Iraqi Army soldiers refused to fight."

If the Fallujah offensive fails, Newsweek grimly predicts, "then the American president will find himself in a deepening quagmire on Inauguration Day."

-- David Talbot

[08:55 PST, Oct. 31, 2004]

Miulang

October 31st, 2004, 06:38 PM

For anyone who cares, here is the complete article in tomorrow's Newsweek which references Gen. Colin Powell's concerns above:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6370591/site/newsweek/

Miulang

waioli kai

November 2nd, 2004, 05:51 AM

USraeli wars in the Middle East, Iraq in particular, are the result of an immorally exaggerated pro-Israeli U.S. foreign policy. Only the Sharon Netanyahu militant zionist faction of Israel in Palestine and AIPAC of US is in love with the USraeli war in Iraq more than Cheney and US "neocons", together of course with their candidate/president/cheerleader Bush and the various Dr. Strangeloves of the USraeli military financial complex.

Kerry's Israel related foreign policy (? and what US foreign policy is not Israel related? dominated?) stance and rhetoric before this 2004 campaign and during the campaign has been consistent to the point of being indistinguishable from that of the BushCheney cabal.

If it were not so important, it would be hilarious that the US media* oblige the USraeli war phenomenon/machine to downplay the importance in the consciousness, subconsciousness of the USraeli created plight of the Palestinians in the minds of anti-Usraeli militants and civilian non-militants.

Did not the civilians of Falluja feel something in common with the arab civilians of Gaza even before ghwBush's war on Iraq in the 1990's, not to mention what is happening for some time now, and, we are promUSed, that worse is to come soon? How does all the krap wBush et. al gush about "Freedom" apply to Palestine? Why should Arabs, Moslems, Islamic peoples not educated in the self-righteousness of US believe that there is something to be gained by submitting to US style and definition of "Freedom"?

waioli kai

November 2nd, 2004, 05:58 AM

"Bush should have said the main reason for us going to Iraq was to stop an evil man from doing damage to the rest of the world."
The President said just such a thing about going into Afghanistan to exterminate another "Evil Man". Instead of US War on Terror, perhaps it should be US War on Evil Man, one right after another.

Because US did not get Usama, the neocons-r-us propaganda priorities had to adjust. After all, had Bush said that US was going to war on Iraq to rid the world of Saddam, most everyone, maybe especially the military who were still exploring for remains of Usama, would have said: "?Come again?"

Few non-Islamic peoples, most especially those under the godspell of US, seem to wonder why Kerry expounding "we're going to hunt down those barbarians", and Bush laying on his Evil stuff do not have Usama responding in kind when Usama is given the chance to talk to the world. It is US candidates for public US office, especially the presidency, who look like animals in cages lashing out at their captor, instead of the other way around.

"The President tells us not to jump to conclusions about what happened to the explosives. We should all question how the explosives survived 'Shock and Awe'."
Explosives are not cheap. In some minds, explosives, especially in great preserved densities, are treasure troves for dispersing into present and future US foreign policy actions. Not something to be purposefully destroyed while in storage in virtual US protection.

Miulang

November 2nd, 2004, 11:19 AM

Here's hoping some of the additional $70 billion Congress will have to approve in January to continue funding the war will go towards giving the ground troops the equipment they need to stay safe. Besides the 1,100+ troops who have been killed, there have been an additional 8,100+ troops injured because they don't have the proper equipment.

According to the article below, there is $8.9 billion in "pork" in the last military spending bill, including curiously, funding for brown tree snake eradication in Hawaii. In the meantime, families are spending money out of their own pockets to send body armor, night vision goggles and other essentials to the troops. There is a bill floating around to allow families to deduct up to $1,200 of those expenses from their taxes.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110204C.shtml

Miulang

Miulang

November 5th, 2004, 06:46 PM

And so begins the battle at Fallujah, which has been called the largest US offensive since the Battle at Hue, Vietnam. The city has been shelled and strafed for the last 12 hours to "soften" up the enemy; our troops are only waiting for the go ahead from the Iraqi provisional government before the ground troops march in to town to try to reclaim it.

We have 10,000 troops surrounding Fallujah. We have support from the Iraqi army, which will be the first wave of force into town. I hope and pray those Iraqis turn out to be true friends of the US and stay by our side to fight bravely. Many reports have come out of Iraq that say our troops don't trust many of the Iraqi forces because they have been betrayed in the past. When you're sharing a foxhole, you'd better trust the person next to you won't be aiming their rifle at you.

Please pray for our troops that when the ground battle really begins, we will sustain minimal casualties. Fallujah could end up being the turning point in this war.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/310/world/Americans_step_up_attacks_agai:.shtml

Miulang

waioli kai

November 5th, 2004, 09:01 PM

Fallujah could end up being the turning point in this war.

A turning point in US neocons' war for the hearts and souls of Iraqi Shia and Sunni? When one considers that a "turning point" can be for better or for worse, no doubt the US decimation of Fallujah will be that.

&&&&&
Consider: This email was published on the presitigious Poynter Institute's Web site. WSJ reporter Fassihi's e-mail to friends 9/29/2004 2:58:10 PM

From: [Wall Street Journal reporter] Farnaz Fassihi Subject: From Baghdad

Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference.

Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second.

It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.

Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad."

What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them.

Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.

A friend drove thru the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday. He said young men were openly placing improvised explosive devices into the ground. They melt a shallow hole into the asphalt, dig the explosive, cover it with dirt and put an old tire or plastic can over it to signal to the locals this is booby-trapped. He said on the main roads of Sadr City, there were a dozen landmines per every ten yards. His car snaked and swirled to avoid driving over them. Behind the walls sits an angry Iraqi ready to detonate them as soon as an American convoy gets near. This is in Shiite land, the population that was supposed to love America for liberating Iraq.

For journalists the significant turning point came with the wave of abduction and kidnappings. Only two weeks ago we felt safe around Baghdad because foreigners were being abducted on the roads and highways between towns. Then came a frantic phone call from a journalist female friend at 11 p.m. telling me two Italian women had been abducted from their homes in broad daylight. Then the two Americans, who got beheaded this week and the Brit, were abducted from their homes in a residential neighborhood. They were supplying the entire block with round the clock electricity from their generator to win friends. The abductors grabbed one of them at 6 a.m. when he came out to switch on the generator; his beheaded body was thrown back near the neighborhoods.

The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating.

I went to an emergency meeting for foreign correspondents with the military and embassy to discuss the kidnappings. We were somberly told our fate would largely depend on where we were in the kidnapping chain once it was determined we were missing. Here is how it goes: criminal gangs grab you and sell you up to Baathists in Fallujah, who will in turn sell you to Al Qaeda. In turn, cash and weapons flow the other way from Al Qaeda to the Baathisst to the criminals. My friend Georges, the French journalist snatched on the road to Najaf, has been missing for a month with no word on release or whether he is still alive.

America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.

As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that almost all projects have come to a halt. After two years, of the $18 billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chuck has now been reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are going here.

Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq?

Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for insecurity. Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.

I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad.

Then I went to see an Iraqi scholar this week to talk to him about elections here. He has been trying to educate the public on the importance of voting. He said, "President Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy that would be an example for the Middle East. Forget about democracy, forget about being a model for the region, we have to salvage Iraq before all is lost."

One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.

The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.

I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

-Farnaz

waioli kai

November 5th, 2004, 09:11 PM

Falluja in their sights

As soon as British troops are redeployed, the US will again turn the city into a bloodbath

Patrick Graham Thursday October 21, 2004 The Guardian :

As the British government prepares to send its soldiers north to free up the US army to attack Falluja, it is necessary to focus on what this coming onslaught will mean for the city and its people. Falluja is already now being bombed daily, as it is softened up for the long-awaited siege. It has been a gruelling year for its people. First, they were occupied by the US army's 82nd Airborne, an incompetent group of louts whose idea of cultural sensitivity was kicking a door down instead of blowing it up. Within eight months of the invasion, the 82nd had killed about 100 civilians in the area and lost control of Falluja, leaving it to the US marines to try and retake the city last April. After killing about 600 civilians, the marines retreated, leaving the city in the hands of 18 armed groups, including tribesmen, Islamists, Ba'athists, former criminals and an assortment of non-Iraqi Arab fighters said to be led by the Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Fallujans have now been offered a choice: hand over the outsiders they dislike (mostly Arabs) who are protecting them from the outsiders they really hate (the Americans), or get blown apart by the world's most lethal killing machine, the US marines. Zarqawi's influence on the resistance has been wildly exaggerated - indeed, many people in Falluja don't even believe he exists, and most find the non-Iraqi Arabs' brand of Salafi fundamentalism at odds with their local Sufi traditions. Today, many Fallujans are tired even of their own mujahideen, but trust the US army even less, and with good reason. Recently, a Bush administration official told the New York Times the bombing was driving a wedge between the citizenry and the non-Iraqi fighters. If, indeed, the civilian population is being bombed for this end, this is a grave war crime.

We have a blueprint for what will happen in the city during the coming attack: Falluja, part one. Like all sequels the next time will be bloodier. Last April I found myself inching across a bridge into Falluja holding an old white T-shirt: in front of me, marines blocking the bridge, screaming at me to go back; behind me, a large group of Iraqis yelling at me to go forward so that they could follow me through the roadblock and rescue their families. After a while, the marines opened the bridge allowing hundreds of women and children to stream out, but stopped the boys older than 16 and men younger than 60 from leaving the city. Preventing civilians from leaving a battle is against the Geneva conventions - although battle doesn't capture what a meat grinder the city had become in that first week of the assault, when the majority of civilian casualties were killed, blown apart by precision, and often inaccurate, airstrikes.

The dead were buried in gardens or in mass graves in the city's soccer field. For three weeks 5,000 marines surrounded the city of 340,000 - think an assault on Cardiff. The marines created a moving front line of humvees and tanks, cutting Falluja off. In the air, helicopters and fighter planes bombed a city without air defences, while unmanned drones circled continuously, looking for targets.

During that first week, I was told by Iraqi fighters that the marines nearly took the city after capturing a lot of rebel ammunition: stockpiles of land-mines and homemade rocket launchers that plugged into car lighters. Oil barrels with distances painted on them lined the streets so the rebels could register mortars. The mujahideen were more than a few foreign fighters and Ba'athists, as the US army had been telling everybody.

Initially, the majority of civilian casualties came from bombing that caused "multiple blast wounds, lost limbs, abdomens blown open," as Falluja's doctors told me. According to the Geneva conventions, force must be proportionate and when these images appeared on Arabic television - dead families stacked on top of each other - it looked anything but proportionate; it looked like mass murder. Against the advice of the marine commanders, the White House ordered a ceasefire. The resistance regrouped, re-supplied itself and fought on.

I made it back into Falluja during the second week of fighting by using fake Iraqi ID. I was accompanied by a translator who told people I was a brother suffering a brain aneurysm. We left Baghdad and drove down roads guarded by guerrilla fighters. The countryside from Ramadi east to Falluja and then to Baghdad was in revolt. We had to pass through resistance lines to get to the marines and then through insurgents to get into the city. It was the marines who were surrounded, not the rebels. This is why the US army needs British troops to free up their soldiers.

The Americans have more than enough troops to attack Falluja, but as soon as they do the area will once more erupt, and it will take everything the Americans have to control the surrounding villages of Habbaniya, Khaldiya and Al Kharma. According to the Iraqi president, Ghazi al-Yawar, there is a good chance that when the marines hit Falluja again, even Mosul, home to three million Sunnis, will explode. Unlike the US army, Mr Yawar knows what he is talking about and understands the way the tribes are grouped in northern Iraq, an intricate web of families that runs through the Sunni triangle. If Mosul is pushed over the edge, holding the north will be like trying to keep the lid on a pressure cooker by hand.

Once we got into Falluja, we were taken at gunpoint to a mosque where we were interrogated by a host of people - former Iraqi secret police and Islamists - before being saved by a friend of my translator's who told us later they were holding 18 hostages in another room. Both hostage-taking and using a mosque as a military base are - like preventing the escape of civilians - against the laws of war. You could hear the occasional shots from snipers, the circling drones, tank fire and mortars. At a clinic, the doctors rolled their eyes at the mention of the mujahideen, but most of their anger was directed at the Americans. The hospital, which lies across the Euphrates, had been cut off from the rest of the city by the marines - another questionable act under the Geneva conventions.

Worse still, the doctors said, several of their colleagues had been shot by snipers along with ambulance drivers, both grave breaches of the laws of war. At this point, most civilians being brought in had head and upper body wounds, most likely from marine snipers. Nothing I saw during the bombing of Baghdad could have prepared me for Falluja under siege. It was as if the marines had been able to cut the city off from the idea of safety itself.

The third time I went into Falluja was during negotiations to hand control of the city over to what became the Falluja Brigade. Mujahideen were busy attaching wires to bombs on street corners, in case the negotiations failed. Today the city is one giant improvised explosive device. But it is the snipers the people of Falluja fear more than anything else.

I have spent time with both resistance fighters and the US army, and there is no question the marines can take the city. But the US has a developed a habit of winning engagements while losing the war - while breaking the laws of war in the process. This is what Britain's redeployment will help to unleash.

· Patrick Graham is a journalist who worked in Iraq from November 2002 until August 2004 for the Observer, Harper's and the New York Times magazines. He is writing a book about his experiences pwgraham@mailblocks.com

Miulang

November 6th, 2004, 07:01 AM

Don't get me wrong, Waioli: I definitely don't support the war, but I do support our troops and pray for their safety.

Reports out of Iraq today say that there is now widespread belief that most of the insurgents have evacuated from Fallujah (as have most of its residents) and relocated to neighboring towns. This will make it much much harder for us to eradicate the insurgents because they are no longer concentrated in one place. This is just arm chair quarterbacking, but maybe we should have completed our mission in Fallujah last April, when al-Zarqawi was still entrenched there.

If it is true that most of the rebels have now left Fallujah, then Fallujah will not be the turning point that I think the US forces wanted it to be and we will be subjected to more hit and run terrorism all the way to the elections in January. I doubt that the Shiites, the Sunni and the Baathists will ever reach the kind of accord necessary to successfully build a peaceful Iraq because there are fundamental differences in what they believe in.

Miulang

waioli kai

November 6th, 2004, 06:29 PM

"I definitely don't support the war, but I do support our troops and pray for their safety."

While i cannot say i pray for their misfortune, as indeed i do not pray so (especially as billions of humanity may engage in similarly but for their doing so sometimes five times a day -intensely at that), reason tells me that it is another step i don't want to take into the arena of illogically suspended conscience to accept i can -if i could- pray for their safety when not also inherently be praying they are free to reign death and decimation on all they perceive between them and goals to establish justUS , liberateUS, secureUS, without Thee.

And without any not-US justice or resistUSness proofing to a reasonable mind that it logically proceeds: as US eliminates militant anti-US secular and fundamentalist Islamic peoples and their mercenaries, eliminates trapped anti-USraeli militants in their lairs (Falluja deja vu USraeli desolations in Ramallah, Jenin, Gaza, ..,) along with any whose homes and neighborhoods are those very same USraeli targeted for annihilation whole neighborhoods/sectors, no matter the costs!! Makes for a compelling distraction from the perils of the ever rising tide of banruptUS Sea; makes for a righteously diversionary crusade of a nationUS whose core industry is financeUSery so fiscally unsound as to grow in astronomical nUmberS/byte$ without substance, void of redemptive worth, like a dream, a delusionUS state of omnipoten$US. Not a dream is when US reign$ fire on Thee. today Fallujah. then Ramadi, Samarra, Sadr City, Tehran, Damascus, back to Kabul, Beruit...how, by then could sectors of Riyad, Cairo, Libya, North Korea, not be eventual recipients of the wrath of USrael?

waioli kai

November 6th, 2004, 09:58 PM

Reports out of Iraq today say that there is now widespread belief that most of the insurgents have evacuated from Fallujah (as have most of its residents) and relocated to neighboring towns. This will make it much much harder for us to eradicate the insurgents because they are no longer concentrated in one place. This is just arm chair quarterbacking, maybe we should have completed our mission in Fallujah last April, when al-Zarqawi was still entrenched there. Miulang
US forces, their Commander in Chief on down, have US media headlining the US assault on Fallujah as being a hunt down of al-Zarqawi. One can only imagine, lest the US seige and assault on Fallujah turns out "WMDs?"-like deja vu , that US forces and civilian commanders are praying to their god of weapons and delivery that US decimation of Fallujah yields a display of al-Zarqawi's head.

If it is true that most of the rebels have now left Fallujah, then Fallujah will not be the turning point that I think the US forces wanted it to be and we will be subjected to more hit and run terrorism all the way to the elections in January.
So, if it is true that most militant anti-USraeli remain in Fallujah and are subsequently exterminated by US, will it be not true that "we will be subjected to more hit and run terrorism all the way to the elections in January"?

I doubt that the Shiites, the Sunni and the Baathists will ever reach the kind of accord necessary to successfully build a peaceful Iraq because there are fundamental differences in what they believe in.
The U.S. Civil War of the 19th Century made 'the new and improved' nation a more united "melting pot" of peoples, perhaps that experience has led US to hope, to preach that salvation resides in firepower, that peace is born of death, destruction and chaos, that what is not delivered to US by a higher power will be taken by US at any cost to humanity, pissing on the future of Life on Earth as necessity demands.

Miulang

November 7th, 2004, 08:55 AM

While i cannot say i pray for their misfortune, as indeed i do not pray so (especially as billions of humanity may engage in similarly but for their doing so sometimes five times a day -intensely at that), reason tells me that it is another step i don't want to take into the arena of illogically suspended conscience to accept i can -if i could- pray for their safety when not also inherently be praying they are free to reign death and decimation on all they perceive between them and goals to establish justUS , liberateUS, secureUS, without Thee.

I personally don't want us meddling "pre-emptively" anywhere in the world! But since we are in Iraq, I also don't want our troops to have to suffer for the stupidity of an Administration which obviously has no idea of how to keep the peace if the war can be won (I am extremely skeptical of that happening). And I don't care if you don't pray. I don't pray to any Christian god, either. That is just a figure of speech.

BTW: I think it would be cool if Arafat could be buried in the Mosque in Jerusalem when he dies, because that is his last wish.

Miulang

waioli kai

November 7th, 2004, 10:37 AM

BTW: I think it would be cool if Arafat could be buried in the Mosque in Jerusalem when he dies, because that is his last wish.

Yes. Makes one wonder what opposition may arise with regard to honoring Sharon's last wishes for the location in which to inter Ariel Sharon's body.

pzarquon

November 8th, 2004, 06:14 AM

Things are ramping up for the inevitable showdown in Fallujah (http://starbulletin.com/2004/11/08/news/story3.html).
More than 10,000 U.S. troops are poised for the Fallujah fight against an estimated 3,000 insurgents... "This is the Hue City (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/Block/chp5_Block%20by%20Block.pdf) (PDF) of our generation," says Lt. Col. Michael Ramos, commander of the Kaneohe-based 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, which is expected to play a key role in Fallujah.

It was disheartening to hear this morning that much of the Iraqi-derived force has dwindled in the past few days, echoing the earlier offense in which local soldiers refused to fight. Training is clearly still needed before Iraqis can defend themselves, and for this battle it'll once again come down mostly to the skill and bravery of U.S. soldiers.

waioli kai

November 8th, 2004, 07:49 AM

Falluja, Babylon 21st Century CE: opUS " Phantom Fuhrery " -> -> = = opUS " New Dawn"

New Dawnation = = ? = = New Damnation

what a difference a "W" makes !! Unfortunately, when inverted, in the context of terrorUSism, what appears as dawn to US is the city of Fallujah on fire, under fire. Homes, citizens, civilians, militants, dogs, cats, rats, non-militants, all.

What is it they say it is: Operation (!) Phantom Fury (!!) New Dawn (!!!) The Dawn (!!!!) Of More Damnation? What? OIL? Operation Iraqi Liberation? Operation Freedom, Liberty, Democracy and justUS? What's that crying? Not US for sure. Not today. Revenge is sweet, so they say; just cries of joy and jubilation.

An individually named, hydra-headed phantomUS operation, the seige and assault on Falluja has become. Were not for the fires in Mesopotamia would not Euphrates be flowing red, as was the vast land surface of Mesonorthamerica during semingly varied manifestations US of A, as even now the domestic maintenance of US is noted as a red landscape more than anything else?

Glen Miyashiro

November 8th, 2004, 07:59 AM

Eh waioli kai, I heard Longs get sale on Reynolds Wrap. :rolleyes:

waioli kai

November 8th, 2004, 12:35 PM

opUS Dei "Phantom Fuhrery"

op us (Latin “work of God”)

Opus Dei (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/artic...&query=opus&ct= )

Roman Catholic lay and clerical organization whose actions and beliefs have been both criticized and praised.
Its members seek personal Christian perfection, strive to implement Christian ideals in their chosen occupations, and promote Christian values to society as a whole. Opus Dei, in full Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei, was founded in 1928 in Spain by Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer y Albá (canonzied in 2002). It is theologically conservative and accepts the teaching authority of the church without question. It was granted special status as the first and only personal prelature in the church by Pope John Paul II in 1982 and has established numerous vocational schools and universities. It is also highly controversial, accused of secrecy, using cult-like recruiting practices, and having grand political ambitions. There are separate organizations for men and women, which, since 1982, have been headed by a prelate elected by its members. At the beginning of the 20th century priests constituted only a tiny percentage of the organization, numbering roughly 1,600 of the nearly 84,000 members living in 80 countries. ttp://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9384283&query=opus&ct=

opUS Day

US operation " Phantom Fury "

Falluja, Babylon

Fall 2004 CE

Miulang

November 11th, 2004, 09:16 AM

I stumbled across this blogsite by Riverbend, an woman who lives in Iraq (probably in Baghdad) and is sending out information on what it's like to live in a country where a puppet regime under the firm control of the US government is trying to exert its influence.

She hasn't written anything since before the election, but it's a good insight into what's happening to the Iraqi people (and certainly a different view than what the US press reports). I just hope she is safe and can continue to post to her blog when the power comes back.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_riverbendblog_archive.html

Miulang

Miulang

November 14th, 2004, 10:15 AM

I don't understand why the DoD and the Administration don't realize that the longer we are engaged in fighting over in Afghanistan and Iraq, the more emotionally wounded vets will be returning to the US. It was bad enough when young men came back emotionally wounded and ended up on the street, drug addicted or alcoholic, but this time, we have Reservists with families. How many of those families will be torn apart by post traumatic stress syndrome? How many returning vets will be denied treatment for the nightmares they will endure for having killed another human being?

We have vets from Vietnam who still carry the cruel reminders of the horrors of that war. This will become another public health crisis, and the Administration wants to shut down VA hospitals in the interest of budget cutting???? :eek:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trauma14nov14,0,2230913.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Miulang

Miulang

November 14th, 2004, 01:48 PM

OK, so the allies "won" the battle of Fallujah yesterday. Now the Prez comes out and says that things will get even more violent between now and the elections in January. Today they are reporting increased violence in Mosul. That means that many of the insurgents escaped from Fallujah before we started our attack. The Prez says, "don't blame the US for the battle. Blame Iyad Allawi because he gave us the go-ahead..." Geez, how stupid does Bush think the American public is, anyway? The Red Crescent (the Arabic version of the Red Cross) says it's a catastrophe for the civilian survivors in Fallujah. We lost almost 40 soldiers and hundreds of wounded; the enemy, the Pentagon claims, lost 1,000 fighters. And the numbers keep adding up.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5710

Miulang

Miulang

November 14th, 2004, 01:59 PM

Why we're never going to win the battle for Iraq is because of the Iraqi forces that are being trained by us who actually are on the side of the insurgents.

At least 2 Iraqi police chiefs from Samara and Mosul have been fired because of the recent escalation of violence in both cities. As Iraqis are being trained to become police, it appears that many either desert at the first sign of trouble or are actually aiding the insurgents.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/world/10164549.htm

Miulang

waioli kai

November 14th, 2004, 03:09 PM

Through my father's teenage soldier front line combat, and associated physical and mental woundings, in Europe came rare descriptions from him of "the life" of war. Had he been able to see 25 years into his future he would have seen himself strapped to an electric shocking table in the custody of the U.S. Government at a Veterans Hospital/Detention/(Torture?) Center in Arcadia, Florida. He would have seen himself, a father of five (living nearby in Sebring, Florida) scaling a chain link containment fence of housing/(healing?) compound for male WWI, WW2, Korea war U.S. veterans by the thousands; he would see himself afflicted with a psychokinesiac condition of pharmaceutical dependency mandated on him as a requirement for releasing him into the society he had once bled for in combat. After more than a decade of such care by the Veterans Administration, the description "changed ...sometimes for worse" rang with the finality of his self-inflicted, mortal overdose on the Administrations drugs. What ever my father's wartime experiences were, however those experiences manifested themselves, it was not his experiences of war that killed him, rather he was killed by the very nation he had served that swept him as refuse into yet another vet's grave.

When he died in 1976 at the age of 49 I was 26, thirteen years older than when he was first incarcerated/treated/'tortured' at the Veterans' (ie, the government's war veteran) Administration facility in Arcadia. I can never forget the sprawling facility with the hundreds of "patients"/prisoners/veterans/victims in civilian clothes behind the high containment fence. I never saw the twin facility nearby which was for female veterans of war. Of course, neither I nor my siblings had any idea what kind of "treatment" actually transpired there. I had no idea that my father, a civil engineer, was being treated against his will with electroshock "therapy" and debilitating psychoactive drugs, that his mind following similar "treatments" in similar institutions throughout the United States in the course of a dozen years would render him a mental aptitude for mathematics comparable to that of his second grade granddaughter today who of course knows nothing of him.

The horrible irony of my father's life as a veteran of WW2 is that had he never been a veteran he would never have been institutionalized in the beginning (when a civil court, and my father's own goodname in the community, could easily have resolved outstanding issues, a civil court for which use the Veterans Administration had none, wanted none, invited none) nor hunted down like a criminal everytime he managed to escape.

waioli kai

November 14th, 2004, 03:32 PM

The Middle East, Falluja <-??-> Tejas, The Alamo

Masada,Jerusalem, Israel <-??-> The Middle East, Falluja

' Dr. Martin Luther King described war as a "poor chisel for carving out peaceful tomorrows."
In that spirit we will gather to say that our sorrow over 9/11 should not be used by our government to promote an endless war.'
So now if this were a multinational military exercise in the Mideast, the French would be occupying Falluja, while the U.S. heads to Mosul to help Pakistani subdue insurgents in the North, the Russians administering Baghdad, the British the South, and U.S./USraeli controlling sea, air and space.

Miulang

November 14th, 2004, 04:31 PM

The horrible irony of my father's life as a veteran of WW2 is that had he never been a veteran he would never have been institutionalized in the beginning (when a civil court, and my father's own goodname in the community, could easily have resolved outstanding issues, a civil court for which use the Veterans Administration had none, wanted none, invited none) nor hunted down like a criminal everytime he managed to escape.
Waioli, my sincere condolences on what happened to your family as a result of your dad's WWII experiences. This is the kind of thing that tears me up inside too, because some of my closest friends are Vietnam vets and though not physically injured, they came back emotionally and psychically injured to the point where they ended up being alcoholic or drug-addicted, with multiple failed marriages and homelessness.
Lots of decent, honor bound young people enlist and then get disillusioned once they taste combat. That's why war of any kind is not good for the health of a country. Since the civilian health care system is already overwhelmed by the public health crisis of civilians, the DoD and the Bush Administration had better step up and strengthen the military health care system. I think the VA Hospitals are a little less sanguine about care nowadays, Waioli, but your family's experiences should serve as a cautionary tale for those of us who can and will do something to try to change the system for the better.

Miulang

waioli kai

November 14th, 2004, 04:52 PM

Since the civilian health care system is already overwhelmed by the public health crisis of civilians, the DoD and the Bush Administration had better step up and strengthen the military health care system. --Miulang

A reasonable first step on the road to voluntary military service would be a few visits to the facilities run by the Veterans Administration.

Miulang

November 16th, 2004, 09:20 AM

Miulang

November 16th, 2004, 09:29 AM

I'm sure by now almost everyone has at least heard about the incident where it appears that a Marine shoots a badly wounded insurgent in the head. The travesty of it all is that the generals and those responsible for training the troops are not teaching the troops about the Geneva Convention. Granted, the wounded man was the "enemy" but he was lying on the ground, with no weapons in sight and a Marine stood over him and shot him in the head. It has been noted that this atrocity alone will cause more Iraqis to join the mujahadeen cause than ever before.

All our commanding officers can say is, "we're investigating the matter". I think that Marine should be court martialed for war crimes and punished. His CO should also be reprimanded. More than likely, though, the Marine will get detained for awhile and then quietly set free with no more than a reprimand. Military justice is only meted out when it serves the purposes of the military.
You can also bet that if the cameraman had not been there to record the event that the whole incident would never have seen the light of day, either.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=583322

Miulang

Ref: Article 3, Geneva Convention:
Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Miulang

November 17th, 2004, 07:53 AM

If you want to see how much the war in Iraq is costing us every second, go here (it ain't cheap): http://www.costofwar.com/

Miulang

Miulang

November 18th, 2004, 07:30 AM

Despite what the US government would like for Americans to believe, the battle of Fallujah is not over. We're still bombing parts of the city, according to this article in al Jazeera.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5687

Miulang

Miulang

November 18th, 2004, 03:45 PM

Try to imagine yourself in a situation where a foreign government sends out leaflets telling you to evacuate your home because there will be violence in your city. Try to imagine yourself fleeing with only some clothes and having to find shelter with relatives who live far away from your hometown for an indeterminate period of time. Try to imagine what it feels like to see on television your whole city in ruin and your being blocked by foreign soldiers from returning to see if you have anything left.

Then you will know how the civilian population of Fallujah must feel. :mad:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4020053.stm

Miulang

waioli kai

November 19th, 2004, 04:33 PM

So now we're doing "cleanup" in Fallujah, while in Mosul we're back to trying to retake the town. What's wrong with this picture? Again, our generals and war planners are so intent on winning battles that they are not focusing on what's supposed to happen after a town has been "liberated". At the rate we're going, we'll never be able to leave Iraq!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-111604iraq_lat,0,5759355.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Miulang

It wasn't called "cleansing" in the beginning, or ever that I know of, but, the term "clearing" was used to the exclusion of all else in the military lingo of the week. This week it is "clean up". Next "follow up", "give a booster", "sterilize", and then "won over". "Won over" is Chinese for well-done nonsense.

Miulang, yes, it was first Operation Fury, until it was obvious to all that it was just another fuhrerUS operation, subtitle this one Opertion Nwad
i (Nwad is US's Persian for Dawn). Some of Us still remember US's
i Operation Bright Star
, the first one, the largest ever to that time joint Egyptian-American military exercise, on the Egypt Libya border in the same dayspan Secretary of State Haig was in Tel Aviv, Israel expounding on US foreign policy possibilities/ "reasonable extrapolations" as related to US "demonstration nuclear blasts", also known as bright stars. This was well before the Gorbachev era of the CCCP.

"At the rate we're going, we'll never be able to leave Iraq!"
I know you're smarter than that!! Of course you know US never had any intention of leaving, at least until rendering Iraq absolutely inhospital to life, civilization, hope or anything else that becomes to intolerable to the continued delusions afforded by the unrequitiny pleasures of US.

waioli kai

November 19th, 2004, 06:19 PM

If you want to see how much the war in Iraq is costing us every second, go here (it ain't cheap): http://www.costofwar.com/

Miulang

At www.costofwar.com it says in their state by state costs that Hawaii has had one soldier killed in Iraq war so far, as of September 2004. The media in Hawaii reports the death of soldiers/marines deployed to Iraq from military stations on Oahu. Such reports apparently overshadow any losses that reflect on the costs in lives with respect to Hawaii reported on costofwar.com

Miulang

November 19th, 2004, 08:16 PM

Miulang

November 19th, 2004, 08:40 PM

Report from al Jazeera quoting a US military officer as saying that we might have to send an additional 3,000 troops to Iraq to help keep the elections safe in January? What happened to all those well-trained Iraqi security forces who were supposed to be helping in that effort?

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5781

Miulang

waioli kai

November 21st, 2004, 07:05 AM

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion - but not their own facts" --Moynihan

Thank God for warrior retirees who are finally at liberty to tell the truth. Nothing much has changed since this warrior told it like it is.

“There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its ’finger men’ to point out enemies, its ‘muscle men’ to destroy enemies, its ‘brain guys’ to plan war preparations, and a ‘Big Boss, Supra-nationalistic Capitalism. It may seem odd for me a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to do so. I spent thirty-five years and four months in active service as a member of our country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps.

“I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General. During that period I spent most of my life being a high-class muscle man for big business, Wall Street and the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer – a gangster for Capitalism.

“I suspected I was just part of the racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like most members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical of anyone in the military.

“Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Hati and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China in 1927 I helped Standard Oil.

“During those years I had, as the boys in the back room say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate in three city districts: I operated on three continents”.

Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC, as quoted in Money, December 1951.

waioli kai

November 21st, 2004, 07:25 AM

I think there have been at least 8 or 9 more Hawai'i soldiers killed since that Cost of War thingie was last updated in September. So yes, besides the monetary figure, the cost of lost lives cannot even be quantified, nor justified.

Cheneybush's Iraq War has as well cost the United States the remainder of whatever goodwill the United States retained in the international community prior to the US March 2003 unprovoked, preemptive invasion of Iraq.

If the world ever needed further convincing that the United States is under firm control of a militarist, fascistic ruling junta, CheneyBush actions in the Middle East has provided exactly such evidence.

waioli kai

November 21st, 2004, 07:44 AM

'A state operated defense industry is socialism too.'
To fascisiti, a state operated defense industry, is a prerequisite.

"Jimmy Carter, if he had any competence, could have used the Iranian seizure of the U.S. embassy as the starting point for operations to overthrow the clerics in Iran before they established themselves."
Thought the poster going to say "could have used the Iranian seizure of the U.S. embassy as the starting point 'to bomb the clerics in Iran' before they established themselves." Am jumping the gun perhaps, by a decade or so,; instead, would be: Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, Sadr City, back to Falluja, back to Ramadi...and so on,,,until eventually can begin the liberatUSnation of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela...why not China? At least imbed some religious zealots and bytes of $US that aren't worth the energy it took to transmit them.

"But then the sad excuse for anything, Jimmy Carter, actively supported the forces that overthrew the Shah."
Too bad Ramsey Clark could not help out Carter beginning on Day 1 of the 1978 student-led takeover of the US Embassy (aka Oil US and CIA/NSA, Inc., overlords of Shah Pahlavi,would-be Persia King of the Milennia) . Too bad Henry Kissinger and gang advised Carter on anything.

Carter had, and still has, pray that more good people fare so long, plenty of competence. His Presidency was sabotaged at every twist and turn (not an insignificant number of such twist and turns created by Republican) by militant corporatist anti-communist fundamentalisti minority in the United States. Whereas "terrorists" militant anti-USraeli are not (yet?) anywhere remotely a majority in US occupied Persia, "terrorUSraeli" in USraeli Hegemone is barely remotely a majority.

"When is that misfit going to exit the scene and stop causing trouble."
Maybe you can be a US Netanyahu to help stir up when not otherwise lead a campaign for Yitsak Rabin "to exit the scene".

"Why the U.S. elected such a basket case is difficult to ascertain."
Then you should have no problem understanding how the world, butt for almost 60 million USers who voted for CheneyBush Rice in that last super-mega-display of demockUSery broadcasts for more than two years leading up to a twelve hour quadrennial event called presidential USlections.

"Our troubles in the Middle East began with Mr. Carter's response to the seizure of the embassy."
The only response that deserves: You were born yesterday.

"I wonder why he has never been called to account for the problems he caused during his thankfully, one term, administration."
So, after, CheneyBush Rice second term, or anytime before then for that matter, you will understand why the necessity for accountability will be brought (not likely by you, of course) to bear on our CheneyBush Rice Presidency for US.

Miulang

November 22nd, 2004, 06:02 AM

What we have done in Iraq is basically to starve the next generation of Iraqi citizens...the ones we're counting on to help rebuild their country. Malnutrition rates have never been as high among Iraqi children as it is since we invaded Iraq. No wonder they hate us. I would hate us, too, if my kids were starving. :mad:

Miulang

Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos
By Karl Vick
The Washington Post

Sunday 21 November 2004

Malnutrition nearly double what it was before invasion.
Baghdad - Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago, according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government.

After the rate of acute malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4 percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year, according to a study conducted by Iraq's Health Ministry in cooperation with Norway's Institute for Applied International Studies and the U.N. Development Program. The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from "wasting," a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein.

"These figures clearly indicate the downward trend," said Alexander Malyavin, a child health specialist with the UNICEF mission to Iraq.

The surveys suggest the silent human cost being paid across a country convulsed by instability and mismanagement. While attacks by insurgents have grown more violent and more frequent, deteriorating basic services take lives that many Iraqis said they had expected to improve under American stewardship.

Iraq's child malnutrition rate now roughly equals that of Burundi, a central African nation torn by more than a decade of war. It is far higher than rates in Uganda and Haiti.

"The people are astonished," said Khalil M. Mehdi, who directs the Nutrition Research Institute at the Health Ministry. The institute has been involved with nutrition surveys for more than a decade; the latest one was conducted in April and May but has not been publicly released.

Mehdi and other analysts attributed the increase in malnutrition to dirty water and to unreliable supplies of the electricity needed to make it safe by boiling. In poorer areas, where people rely on kerosene to fuel their stoves, high prices and an economy crippled by unemployment aggravate poor health.

"Things have been worse for me since the war," said Kasim Said, a day laborer who was at Baghdad's main children's hospital to visit his ailing year-old son, Abdullah. The child, lying on a pillow with a Winnie the Pooh washcloth to keep the flies off his head, weighs just 11 pounds.

"During the previous regime, I used to work on the government projects. Now there are no projects," his father said.

When he finds work, he added, he can bring home $10 to $14 a day. If his wife is fortunate enough to find a can of Isomil, the nutritional supplement that doctors recommend, she pays $7 for it.

"But the lady in the next bed said she just paid $10," said Suad Ahmed, who sat cross-legged on a bed in the same ward, trying to console her skeletal 4-month-old granddaughter, Hiba, who suffers from chronic diarrhea.

Iraqi health officials like to surprise visitors by pointing out that the nutrition issue facing young Iraqis a generation ago was obesity. Malnutrition, they say, appeared in the early 1990s with U.N. trade sanctions championed by Washington to punish the government led by President Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait in 1990.

International aid efforts and the U.N. oil-for-food program helped reduce the ruinous impact of sanctions, and the rate of acute malnutrition among the youngest Iraqis gradually dropped from a peak of 11 percent in 1996 to 4 percent in 2002. But the invasion in March 2003 and the widespread looting in its aftermath severely damaged the basic structures of governance in Iraq, and persistent violence across the country slowed the pace of reconstruction almost to a halt.

In its most recent assessment of five sectors of Iraq's reconstruction, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington research group, said health care was worsening at the quickest pace.

"Believe me, we thought a magic thing would happen" with the fall of Hussein and the start of the U.S.-led occupation, said an administrator at Baghdad's Central Teaching Hospital for Pediatrics. "So we're surprised that nothing has been done. And people talk now about how the days of Saddam were very nice," the official said.

The administrator, who would not give his full name for publication, cited security concerns faced by Iraqi doctors, who are widely perceived as rich and well-connected and thus easy targets for thieves, extortionists and the merely envious or vengeful. So many have been assassinated, he said, that the Health Ministry recently mailed out offers to expedite weapon permits for doctors.

Violence has also driven away international aid agencies that brought expertise to Iraq following the U.S. invasion.

Since a truck bombing at the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad killed more than 20 people last year, U.N. programs for Iraq have operated from neighboring Jordan. Doctors Without Borders, a group known for its high tolerance for risk and one of several that helped revive Iraq's Health Ministry in the weeks after the invasion, evacuated this fall.

CARE International closed down in October after the director of its large Iraq operation, Margaret Hassan, was kidnapped. She is now presumed to be dead. The huge Atlanta-based charity had remained active in Iraq through three wars, providing hospitals with supplies and sponsoring scores of projects to offer Iraqis clean drinking water.

By one count, 60 percent of rural residents and 20 percent of urban dwellers have access only to contaminated water. The country's sewer systems are in disarray.

"Even myself, I suffer from the quality of water," said Zina Yahya, 22, a nurse in a Baghdad maternity hospital. "If you put it in a glass, you can see it's turbid. I've heard of typhoid cases."

The nutrition surveys indicated that conditions are worst in Iraq's largely poor, overwhelmingly Shiite Muslim south, an area alternately subject to neglect and persecution during Hussein's rule. But doctors say malnutrition occurs wherever water is dirty, parents are poor and mothers have not been taught how to avoid disease.

"I don't eat well," said Yusra Jabbar, 20, clutching her swollen abdomen in a fly-specked ward of Baghdad's maternity hospital. Her mother said the water in their part of Sadr City, a Shiite slum on the capital's east side, is often contaminated. Her brother contracted jaundice.

"They tell me I have anemia," Jabbar said. Doctors said almost all the pregnant women in the hospital do.

"This is not surprising because since the war, there is lots of unemployment," Yahya said. "And without work, they don't have the money to obtain proper food."

Iraqis say such conditions carry political implications. Baghdad residents often point out to reporters that after the 1991 Persian Gulf War left much of the capital a shambles, Hussein's government restored electricity and kerosene supplies in two months.

"Yes, there is a price for every war," said the official at the teaching hospital. "Yes, there are victims. But after that?"

"Oh God, help us build Iraq again. For our children, not for us. For our kids," the official said.