952 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

Here is an alternative page for those that want the Beeb's take in addition to our own.



http://news.bbc.co.u...raq/default.stm

Chaos as Mosul falls to Kurds
Friday, 11 April, 2003, 11:09 GMT 12:09 UK
http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/2938191.stm

Widespread looting has broken out in the main northern Iraqi city of Mosul, after the Iraqi army abandoned the city to US-backed Kurdish fighters.
Television pictures showed people picking up banknotes from the street, and beds, furniture and even a roof-top air-conditioning unit being stripped from buildings and carried away.

A central market was set on fire and pictures of the ousted Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, were defaced.

Kurdish fighters set up roadblocks, while columns of Iraqi soldiers were seen flooding out of the city. The US military says the entire 5th Corps of the Iraqi army has surrendered.

US special forces are also said to be in Mosul, but no sightings were reported by journalists.


Kurdish fighters are said to have broken into Mosul's central bank

A central market was set on fire and pictures of the ousted Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, were defaced.

Kurdish fighters set up roadblocks, while columns of Iraqi soldiers were seen flooding out of the city. The US military says the entire 5th Corps of the Iraqi army has surrendered.

US special forces are also said to be in Mosul, but no sightings were reported by journalists.

The developments come a day after Kurdish fighters swept in unopposed to the other main city in the area, oil-rich Kirkuk.

The BBC's Malcolm Brabant says American control over Kirkuk and Mosul will open up more avenues from which to attack Tikrit, whose people are bound to Saddam Hussein by tribal ties and are expected to put up fierce resistance.

He adds that the town can expect continued heavy air attacks for the next four or five days, while American reinforcements make their way to what could be the last battlefield of the war.

Meanwhile, US forces in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, say they are taking measures to try to end the serious security problems in the city caused by the looting of hospitals, government buildings, shopping centres and private homes.

They are setting up an operations centre at the Palestine Hotel in the centre of the city, and are calling on professional people to come forward to help run public services.

Sporadic fighting has continued in Baghdad, with Iraqi militia fighters still resisting US forces in the densely-populated western suburbs of the city.

Kurdish forces in Kirkuk say they will hand over control to the Americans shortly, following their unexpected advance into the city on Thursday against strong US advice.

Washington has moved quickly to reassure Turkey that the Kurds will not be allowed to control Kirkuk and its oil resources, or to declare an independent state in northern Iraq.

Ankara is concerned that this could inspire separatist demands among its own sizeable Kurdish minority. In a move to reassure the Turks, the US has invited Turkish military observers into northern Iraq.

After Kirkuk fell, 20,000 Kurdish fighters streamed into the city, waving guns and firing into the air. The pictures caused consternation in Turkey, and it threatened to send its troops across the border into northern Iraq.

Now the Kurds in the city are keeping a very low profile, housed in former Iraqi barracks just outside the city. Their commander has said they will leave as soon as a sizeable US force arrives to take control of the city. He said the forces would return to the two main Kurdish cities of Sulaymaniyah and Irbil.

HUMAN COST OF WAR

US: 99 dead (including 26 in non-combat accidents, 5 to 'friendly fire', 2 under investigation), 8 missing

UK: 30 dead (including 16 in non-combat accidents, 5 to 'friendly fire')

Iraq: At least 1252 civilian deaths*, military deaths unknown
*Former regime figures, 3 April

[Lazarus Long]

Here is what it looks like up close and personal and not because of Saddam but because of our approach to dealing with him.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ery/2935669.stm

In a critical condition, this Iraqi boy is rushed to hospital

In Basra, it has become difficult to treat the wounded as hospitals have run out of fresh water or electricity

Arab public opinion is incensed at the suffering it has been witnessing on its TV screens

It is felt that in this war ordinary people have very much been on the front line

Aid agencies, which have had casualties of their own, want free access to civilian populations...
...but first they want to be re-assured over safety before resuming relief work

[Lazarus Long]

The looting continues in Iraq

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/2937891.stm
Analysis: Calm must come quickly
By Jonathan Marcus
BBC defence correspondent at US Central Command, Qatar

The looting continues in Iraq even as the problems of war continue so the problems of establishing peace are looming their ugly heads.

Suicide bombing, looting, disorder, and factional or religious differences threaten to prevent an easy transition to something like normal life. The problem is that peace is a great deal more than just the absence of war.

Conflict - especially the overthrow of a repressive regime - has frequently been followed by chaos and retribution. You only have to think of the aftermath of the liberation of France after the World War II, when there was a wave of score-settling and many people died. But the British and the Americans cannot afford a lengthy period of disorder.

Better life

Part of their claim to the legitimacy of this operation is that they will bring a better life to ordinary Iraqis. Their forces are still very much in the media spotlight. And in purely legal terms - as an occupying power (whatever their talk about liberation) - they have a duty to maintain order. That is not easy.

Iraq has been invaded by a relatively small force.

Troops will still have to be wary of suicide attackers. To mount full-scale peacekeeping operations in Baghdad, Basra and throughout the towns and cities across the country, would take many more troops than are available.

As in so many things, the military can step into the breach temporarily. But the US and Britain are unlikely to want to deploy additional soldiers on the ground. The British in particular badly need to scale down their forces once the war is over.

They may well end up being responsible for security in a much larger area of southern Iraq than they currently occupy.

Manpower problem

All sorts of creative solutions may be needed; for example Britain could provide a military framework into which a number of other countries might provide battalions for peacekeeping duties. That is part of the answer to more manpower. But the hope of senior British officers is that they will be able to find pieces of the Iraqi administrative system to assist in doing the job.

For example, it may be possible to try to resurrect elements of the police force to protect property and deal with ordinary crime. The more existing Iraqi structures can be used, so the process of normalisation will proceed faster.

The fighting is far from over Maintaining law and order will not be the only problem. Bombings or attacks by die-hard members of the regime could continue. There is a danger that groups whom the Americans regard as terrorists could seek to infiltrate elements into Iraq to conduct attacks against US forces.

The Americans also have to deal with the complex ethnic and religious patchwork of the country. The murder of a prominent Shia cleric in Najaf and the occupation of the northern city of Kirkuk by Kurdish fighters are both emblematic of the sorts of difficulties that may lie ahead.

The problems of post-war Iraq are fast becoming evident and the fighting itself is still far from over.


The fighting is far from over
**********************************************************

Kissinger you once asked me what I would do if my worst predictions proved wrong. Now I pose for you a similar question. What will you do if they are correct?

A cursory review of my predictions demonstrates (short term) I have a pretty good track record so far. We are passed debating the "why" of what we are doing and we had better shift quickly into the where, how, and what we should do to confront the continuing carnage that as of this point WE are responsible for.

We can't keep blaiming the victim and expect the Iraqi people to welcome our intervention, let alone the rest of the world that will inevitably be asked to remedy much of the harm we are doing.

This can be seen as a passive aggresssive guerrilla strategy, and we can whine about this isn't fair in disbelief, but it is "what is" and it must be addressed, immediately. The way the British regained some control in Basra was to start shooting into the crowd and killing civilians. Not simplistic wanton killing but intentional targeting to pick off leaders and the most "dangerous" types but our troops are under orders not to do this for political reasons.

We are now caught in the Catch 22 many have warned was coming. We have created a power vacuum and are not adequately prepared to stem the onrushing flood of humanity that is rushing in to fill the void.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 11 April 2003 - 01:04 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Belief is irrelevant, we are responsible to bring order to this chaos immediately under the 4th Geneva Convention as an occupying power and the British aren't too happy with our performance either.

They see us as incompetant, unwilling, and unprepared for what we are facing both in terms of preparations and logistics as well as training; I am referring to "peacekeeping not combat. There is a big difference between what they are going through in Basra and we are in Baghdad.

One reason that many have argued that we didn't have nearly enough "boots on the ground" was the to face the probability that this outcome would occur and thus be able to maintain BOTH the police action and the pacification process. The reports on the looting, pillage, revenge, killings, AND rape are worsening not improving. And these reports aren't coming from al Jazeera.

Lazarus Long,

Belief stated as fact is not wise unless it can be backed up.

The fact is that the war is not over and was stated so in the article you posted directly above:

The fighting is far from over

Instantaneous control over civil disorder in a war zone, is that what you "believe" is possible?

When did that ever occur during a war?

Just to be clear and to provide a specific example, there have been civil disturbances in Los Angeles that have lasted for almost a week. The last one happened about 10 years ago. Yes, there were killings, rapes and looting. Another fact, is that there were almost no police actions to stop the civil unrest at first. This happened in the USA, in a time of peace and with a police force intact. Unfortunately, it takes time to put those actions down.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 11 April 2003 - 03:59 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Instantaneous control over civil disorder, is that what you "believe"?

When did that ever occur during a war?

Never, and that was one reason I have argued against this policy of preemptive intervention all along. But to the more important question of logistics and intent to meet the task and burden you are sidestepping the real issue. This is why the UN was crucial all along and why having those least interested philosophically and most reluctant to do Nation Building and Social Welfare actually defining the strategy as an added risk that our society is not closely examining.

We do not even really have a BI-lateral Strategy (Dems vs. Reps) being developed domestically in this area of Strategic Development and we are really facing a multilateral threat that can only be met by an adequately organized combined effort (Internationally). "Need" may not be sufficient to hold our alliances together if the United States undermine everyones' best efforts and the US is routinely seen to be the "Bull in the China Shop".

I fear we are isolating ourselves even more everyday. I heard this morning that even the Pentagon's Pawn Chalabi is saying that the US should get out of the way immediately and allow Iraqi's to determine their own coalition of force. I am not discussing rushing into Peacekeeping in the middle of a running skirmish war; I am saying we are blindsided culturally to the need to focus on this priority by domestic dogma and it is evidenced in the planner's failure to adequately address the size and characteristics of the force needed as well as its deployment.

"Instantantly" isn't possible ever but it will take significantly longer than it needed to and our best intentions will never succeed without a commitment to addressing the complex "Social" aspects of the conflict.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 11 April 2003 - 04:03 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Here is what it looks like up close and personal and not because of Saddam but because of our approach to dealing with him.

Lazarus Long,

Every casualty of war is terrible and to claim that the US military did not inflict some in the crossfire would be incorrect.

I agree, the US's approach in dealing with Saddam was not correct. The US should have finished the job in 1991 when the people of Iraq revolted against that serial killer called Saddam.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 11 April 2003 - 04:10 PM.

[bobdrake12]

"Instantantly" isn't possible ever but it will take significantly longer than it needed to and our best intentions will never succeed without a commitment to addressing the complex "Social" aspects of the conflict.

Lazarus Long,

I agree.

This is not going to be easy. Earlier, I posted a Rand Study on this phase which showed some of the complexities. According to that study, it would take 10 years and about $1.9 Trillion.

One of the most significant dangers is that several of Iraq's neighbors don't want a Free Iraq. Check out the foreign troops currently involved in the fighting. The bottom line is that a Free Iraq is a threat to a boardering regime which is run by a tyrannical dictator.


bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 11 April 2003 - 04:21 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

I agree, the US's approach in dealing with Saddam was not correct. The US should have finished the job in 1991 when the people of Iraq revolted against that serial killer called Saddam.

bob

As I have already mentioned to you I happen to agree with this. I also think it is one reason some of our planners believe we owe the Kurds their own State. The Turks believe we believe this too. Think about it. Iran and Turkey aren't just thinking about it, they are laying plans together. They have a unique relationship to the situation and it is a complex one, not simplistic, and this is not just about Saddam's sadistic mania.

I am even emotionally sympathetic to the Kurd's historic struggle, the parallels of their tale in history are profound, first of all they are the Wandering Jews of the Silk Road. They have a noble and honorable quest.

They are the "caravanistas" that have lived everywhere and nowhere for millennium. They created the East/West trade routes and have plied back and forth between Mongols and Gypsies for thousands of years. They deserve their mythic homeland with secure borders too; as do the Jews as well as the Palestinians, and their desire will come into being with all the same concurrent social seismic stress, simultaneously with those of numerous groups from the Tamil to the Maya; Oh and by the way, so do the Sioux.

Why do you think I keep insisting we are debating this in the wrong forum? And debating the wrong tactics to begin with?

Remember this is the Administration that intended to do NOTHING about the Middle East until after September 11th 2001. They only wanted to avoid the problem before and now they border on being evangelical.

Compromise isn't always best and the "middle of the road", while providing some assuredness of not getting lost is also a good place to get run over. This isn't just about just developing a "moderate policy" that is mediocre because it is watered down to meet too many conflicted interests either. It is about building a true consensus and there appears to be a lack of commitment to this both at a governmental level and a popular one too.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 11 April 2003 - 04:58 PM.

[bobdrake12]

http://story.news.ya...satoday/5062325

War machine under pressure to produce peace and security (excerpts)

Fri Apr 11, 5:36 AM ET

James Cox USA TODAY

BASRA, Iraq (news - web sites) -- The battle plan was built on speed, flexibility and daring. The peace plan has been slower to emerge.

U.S. and British troops still face sniper fire and pockets of resistance in parts of Iraq. Thursday, a suicide bombing in Baghdad injured four Marines. Even as coalition forces must deal with continuing dangers, Iraqis are demanding answers: What money should we use? Why isn't there water? Who will stop the looting? When will food, medicines and other aid arrive?

Lawlessness, chaos and uncertainty surged into the vacuum left by the coalition forces racing to Baghdad to strangle Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime. Now, a military machine crouched for combat has to pivot sharply to become a police force and, temporarily, a provider of basic services.

The Bush administration is mustering a mix of forces to handle the job:

* Some front-line combat troops, thin on the ground south of Baghdad, will have to retrace their steps to establish order in places they blew past on the way to the capital. Others will be brought in from Kuwait. Many will remain tied down in the capital, trying to provide security.

* Military civil affairs teams will have to go knocking on doors to find community leaders who are untainted by ties to Saddam. They're looking for people who can help get basic services such as electricity and water up and running as soon as possible.

* A civilian Pentagon (news - web sites) task force must fan out across Iraq to push the long-term rebuilding process forward and help set a framework for a new government.

* Next week, special U.S. presidential envoy Zalmay Khalilzad will meet in Iraq with representatives of major Iraqi exile groups and other anti-Saddam leaders. Khalilzad will try to start the process of creating an Interim Iraqi Authority to replace Saddam.

[bobdrake12]

I also think it is one reason some of our planners believe we owe the Kurds their own State. The Turks believe we believe this too. Think about it. Iran and Turkey aren't just thinking about it, they are laying plans together. They have a unique relationship to the situation and it is a complex one, not simplistic, and this is not just about Saddam's sadistic mania.

Lazarus Long,

The Turkish government may have miscalculated by not allowing the US troops to use their country to attack Iraq from the north.

One of the Kurdish leaders has been on television a number of times. He has been talking about a federal government similar to that of the US's. The Kurds would have their own state while being under the federal government of Iraq.

A lot depends on which leaders are listened to during the formation of the government of Iraq.

bob

[bobdrake12]

http://story.news.ya...satoday/5056268

Iraqis living in USA eager to 'take our country back' (excerpts)

Thu Apr 10, 5:38 AM ET

David Kiley USA TODAY

DEARBORN, Mich. -- Shop owner Ali Al-baaj was among the thousands of Iraqi expatriates who took to the streets here Wednesday to celebrate the fall of Baghdad.

''I told my travel agent this morning I want to be on the first flight back,'' said Al-baaj, owner of Al Zahra Fruit Market on Warren Avenue.

The avenue was the scene of a spontaneous midday parade of cars festooned with Iraqi and American flags and anti-Saddam placards. More people gathered after work at a park in this Detroit suburb, home to many of the area's more than 100,000 Iraqis and Iraqi-Americans. They shared hugs, food and music, and they made plans to return to their homeland to see loved ones left behind years ago.

Kamillia Marogy of the Manera Travel Agency here said many of her customers called to inquire about a charter flight to their homeland. ''I'm not sure when it will happen, but soon, I hope. . . . I will go, too,'' she said. Her family is still in Baghdad.

Vabil Alwayili, a truck driver from Basra, and Mahdi Aljabery, a pharmacy student, drove the streets in a Pontiac Firebird with an 8-foot U.S. flag billowing from the door frame.

''Saddam thinks he is king of the world, but he is finished,'' said Alwayili, whose aunt was killed by Saddam loyalists. His cousin, a medical student, was imprisoned for 10 years and emerged mentally ill.

''Everyone here and in Iraq (news - web sites) has had a member of their family killed or worse by Saddam,'' he said.

[Lazarus Long]

The Turkish government may have miscalculated by not allowing the US troops to use their country to attack Iraq from the north.

And we may have grossly miscalculated by not crediting the Turk reticence. We are fracturing our alliances. We are ignoring significant indications of the need for further planning and negotiation PRIOR to acting precipitously.

We are attempting to just look at foreign policy and muscle our own way and it won’t work past causing a lot of destruction. There are many that feel this is intentional and as a people we are even suspect. Power doth corrupt…

[bobdrake12]

Why do you think I keep insisting we are debating this in the wrong forum? And debating the wrong tactics to begin with?

Lazarus Long,

Unfortunately topics such as "Causes of war and how to prevent it" and "Is our civilization at risk?" have displayed a limited audience.

bob

[bobdrake12]

And we may have grossly miscalculated by not crediting the Turk reticence. We are fracturing our alliances. We are ignoring significant indications of the need for further planning and negotiation PRIOR to acting precipitously.

We are attempting to just look at foreign policy and muscle our own way and it won’t work past causing a lot of destruction.

Lazarus Long,

The Newsweek article I posted some time back discussed how the US (Bush's Administration) scared not only its enemies but its allies as well.

Some on this Forum felt the article was biased against the US.

bob

[Lazarus Long]

Unfortunately topics such as "Causes of war and how to prevent it" and "Is our civilization at risk?" have displayed a limited audience.

bob

agreed [cry]

and mostly stereotyped responses even then but to our credit we have to start somewhere, and we did at least start a discussion. It certainly isn't finished yet.

( I never noticed before that our selection of emoticons has none that are sad [wacko] )

Edited by Lazarus Long, 11 April 2003 - 05:03 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.iranexper...urkey7april.htm

Iran backs Turkish stand against Kurdish statehood
IranExpert
7 April Daily Star

Iran is opposed to the creation of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq and supports greater consultations among Iraq’s neighbors on the country’s future, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said Sunday after talks in Turkey.

Both Turkey and Iran oppose the breakup of Iraq, which they fear will stir separatist sentiment within their own Kurdish minorities.

“We are opposed to the creation of a government in the north or any other section of Iraq,” Kharrazi said at a joint news conference with his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul.

Gul, for his part, said “Iran and Turkey, as the two large countries of the region, share common concerns.”

But Kharrazi said any incursion by neighboring countries into Iraq would further destabilize the situation in the country. Turkey has said it may send troops into northern Iraq if it feels its security is at risk or to prevent a large refugee influx.

Kharrazi said he favored a meeting of Turkish, Iranian and Syrian officials to discuss the future of Iraq. Gul said he would travel to Damascus on April 13 to discuss the repercussions of the Iraq war on the region.

Kharrazi spoke at length against the US-led war, saying it violated international law. He said the Iraqi people had shown throughout the war that they neither support the Iraqi regime, nor foreign domination, and only seek to secure their basic rights.

He added that Iran’s opposition to the war “does not mean support for the regime of Saddam Hussein since Iran has suffered the most” from the regime. The Iranian foreign minister also dismissed US warnings on interfering in the war in Iraq as “nothing new” and said Tehran was opposed to any foreign intervention in the Arab state.

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last month accused Tehran, of backing armed groups inside Iraq, raising concerns the US may consider targeting Iran after the Iraqi war. US officials have denied Washington plans to strike Iran.

“These warnings from America are nothing new. US policy in the region is, ‘You are either with us or against us.’ We have heard these warnings from America for years,” Kharrazi said.

“(The United States) knows there are very deep differences in perspectives between America and Iran,” he added.

“We hope America will not pursue the same policies in the region that Israel implements. The people will most definitely take action against this.”

The US has also singled out Syria, which Washington claims has been providing military support to the Iraqi regime. On Sunday, the US reiterated its warning that it would hold Syria accountable for allegedly sending military supplies to Iraq.

“They’re doing some things they shouldn’t be doing, and the sooner they stop, the better it will be for them,” deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program.

“The Syrians should know that what they do now, they will be held accountable for.”

Wolfowitz said that did not mean the US was planning to invade Syria, but that Damascus could suffer diplomatic consequences after the war in Iraq.

“Military is not the only instrument, it isn’t necessarily the main instrument” in dealing with countries that support terrorism, he said.

Meanwhile, Turkey expelled three Iraqi diplomats, who have been told to leave within the next seven days, Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin said Sunday.

“The Iraqi diplomats must leave Turkey within a week,” Anatolia news agency quoted him as saying. The Turkish government confirmed Saturday it was expelling the three diplomats, following a request from the US.

Sahin said the Turkish foreign ministry had “serious evidence” that the diplomats were engaged in “activities incompatible with their status” ­ a euphemism for spying. The three envoys are the Iraqi embassy’s first and second secretaries, Mohammed Hikmet and Sabah al-Duri, and the deputy trade attache Ahmet Matlub. The US last month appealed to all countries to expel Iraqi diplomats, as it sent its military to invade Iraq.

Turkey’s decision to expel the envoys, who are part of the Iraqi Embassy’s 20-person staff, was announced three days after US Secretary of State Colin Powell held talks with government ministers in Ankara. ­ Agencies

[bobdrake12]

Unfortunately topics such as "Causes of war and how to prevent it" and "Is our civilization at risk?" have displayed a limited audience.

bob

agreed [cry]

and mostly stereotyped responses even then but to our credit we have to start somewhere, and we did at least start a discussion. It certainly isn't finished yet.

Lazarus Long,

It is far too exciting to think of problems confronting this civilization thousands to millions of years from now rather than to face up to current risks that need solutions in time now.

This to me has been a cop out. It might be politically correct, but it is still a cop out and to me shows the lack of wisdom to face the current reality much like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand when facing a threat.



It is time to face the reality of the current risks to this civilization.


What we can control is today, and it is today that this civilization that is going through the very perilous transition from a Type 0 to a Type 1 civilization.

It is today that this civilization has WMD and MAD which can annihilate this entire civilizaiton. It is also today that free societies are at risk.



Nuclear winter


Unless today's problems are dealt with wisdom, there might not be a civilization (much less a free society) as we know it 40 years from now.




No justice, no peace. Yes, atrocities accompanied by the false peace by inaction of the supposed international community can eventually lead to war.


I credit those who have participated in this topic (Should The Us Go To War With Iraq?, The War on Iraq) for facing up to this reality.

bob

http://www.carleton....astrophe63.html

Nuclear Winter Effect on Climate




A mushroom cloud forms after a tactical nuclear-weapon explsion at a Nevada test site in 1951.


For nuclear exchanges involving principally urban areas only 500 megatons required to generate nuclear winter.

o Sun would be shut off for months.

o Temperatures would plummet perticularly in continental interiors.

o Would take several seasons for climate to return to normal.

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 April 2003 - 04:29 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

This to me has been a cop out. It might be politically correct, but it is still a cop out and to me shows the lack of wisdom to face the current reality much like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand when facing a threat.

I am on your side on this, you know what they say:

"You can lead a whore to culture but drink never made them think."

People are so involved in the self indulgent aspect of acquisition that they don't think much past their paychecks, and "futurism" for them isn't about planning; it is about denial, diversion, and distraction. It certainly doesn't much reflect committment to any one or another aspect of what distinguishes positive versus negative outcomes of our present day actions, or a serious intent for what kind of future we can make.

For example the real politick has changed so dramatically that as a people we would rather go to war to guarantee and control supply to insure our consumption rate than even realistically discuss both conservation and conversion technologies this time around; even though these are legitimate aspects of addressing the real problem of the competition for resources we are globally facing.

Anyway I hear ostrich tastes like chicken and one slit throat can feed a family of four for a fortnight.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 11 April 2003 - 11:38 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Anyway I hear ostrich tastes like chicken and one slit throat can feed a family of four for a fortnight.  

Lazarus Long,

That is appropriate. [B)]

bob

[bobdrake12]

For example the real politick has changed so dramatically that as a people we would rather go to war to guarantee and control supply to insure our consumption rate than even realistically discuss both conservation and conversion technologies this time around;

Lazarus Long,

I have talked with many people in the US who simply want a Free Iraq.

Going to war to simply gain a resource such as oil is nothing other than theft. It is unethical. It is wrong.

I have yet to talk with an American that believes otherwise but I am sure that there are some opportunists that believe that stealing is OK as long as they are the ones that steal rather than being stolen from. [ph34r]

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 11 April 2003 - 11:41 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

I have talked with many people in the US who simply want a Free Iraq.

Going to war to simply gain a resource such as oil is nothing other than theft. It is unethical. It is wrong.

I have yet to talk with an American that believes otherwise but I am sure that there are some opportunists that believe that stealing is OK as long as they are the ones that steal rather than being stolen from.  

bob

That is good to hear but I find that the general discussion about alternatives to what we are doing token at best. I am also not talking about Iraq in isolation anymore than the Administration is. If we were so interested in reform we should also do something about Mugabe, and the plight of the Tamil and the situation that has been an ongoing paramilitary war in Latin America driven by our domestic consumption of narcotics.

Like I implied however, few look past the well framed image in front of them that excludes all perception of what is going on all around and is eclipsed by the object of their focus. When it isn't Iraq it is OJ covering up bombings, asassinations, and our own military's actions taken in secret.

TV or not TV that isn't a question, it's a threat.

The main reason we are in Iraq is not to make it better, it is the security interests as they see it for the region (control of oil supply) and the fact they are trying to address one of their own rogues that has gone too far. But that is not how the situation is framed for the public.

When I say it is about control of the oil supply that isn't about petty simplistic greed it is about power in its most profound and profane sense.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 11 April 2003 - 11:58 PM.

[bobdrake12]

There have been many articles written that bash the religion of Islam. I am not Islamic but do have friends who are. They are trusted friends who are very decent US citizens.

I believe that the people of Iraq have suffered enough.




Saddam's defeat is just the beginning. A Free Iraq needs to be established.


I look forward to the day of a Free and Independent Iraq. This transition is a huge challenge. The greatest obstacle a Free Iraq will face is the covet and overt actions of its boardering regimes controlled by tryannical dictators. The bottom line is a Free Iraq is a threat to tyrannical regimes. Thus, the state run news media in those regimes will do anything they can to sway public opinion from allowing for the transition to installing a democracy in Iraq with a Constitutional Bill of Rights.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 April 2003 - 04:33 AM.

[bobdrake12]

That is good to hear but I find that the general discussion about alternatives to what we are doing token at best.

Lazarus Long,

It is time to look at permanent solutions rather than just criticising and tossing out doubt. It is so easy to be cynical. A cynic gets a great following.

It just might be time to start writing our representatives if we have apprehensions.

Rather than saying why things can't be done, it is time to figure out how things can be done. Unless we face our real problems, there will be no civilization (much less a free society).




The clock is ticking. Real and creative solutions are required during this very difficult transition from a Type 0 to a Type 1 civilization.


If you don't like the current alternative, how about coming up with better ones? That is the challenge.

The bottom line: No justice, no peace.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 April 2003 - 04:38 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

I look forward to the day of a Free and Independent Iraq. This transition is a huge challenge. The greatest obstacle a Free Iraq will face is the covet and overt actions of its boardering regimes controlled by tryannical dictators. The bottom line is a Free Iraq is a threat to tyrannical regimes. Thus, the state run news media in those regimes will do anything they can to sway public opinion from allowing for the transition to installing a democracy in Iraq with a Constitutional Bill of Rights.

HERE HERE!!! [!]

I said before I will support their right to Democratic Institutions even if that means they decide to turn against us. I do want to encourage the empowerment of the PEOPLE of Iraq. I for one would be overjoyed to know they have a reason to be grateful to us but I don't see gratitude as obligatory and I don't expect it I am just willing to try and earn it. I am also trying to establish that there is a very great need to draw a line here inthe sand and not let ourselves run away with our own sense of dictatorial authority. I am against benevolent dictators almost as much as malevolent ones.

[bobdrake12]

I said before I will support their right to Democratic Institutions even if that means they decide to turn against us. I do want to encourage the empowerment of the PEOPLE of Iraq. I for one would be overjoyed to know they have a reason to be grateful to us but I don't see gratitude as obligatory and I don't expect it I am just willing to try and earn it. I am also trying to establish that there is a very great need to draw a line here inthe sand and not let ourselves run away with our own sense of dictatorial authority. I am against benevolent dictators almost as much as malevolent ones.

Lazarus Long,

Right on!!! [!]

To be successful, there needs to be a time for a meaningful transition. Let us not forget that Democracies are fragile without a solid foundation.

But also let us not forget the ultimate goal: Power to the people of a Free Iraq!!! [!]


bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 April 2003 - 12:18 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

If you don't like the current alternative, how about coming up with better ones? That is the challenge.

The bottom line: No justice, no peace.

That my friend was the point of the essay Pax Americana; I think WE should call for the Convening of a Global Constitutional Congress and participate IN not DICTATE to the process. We should make a commitment to our ideals and allow them to be tested in the forum of global debate and we should LISTEN to the concerns and interests of others and encourage a peaceful process of resolution that demonstrates that the entire world is represented and that they will achieve security of common cause, respect for their cultural interests, and a commitment to the Rule of Law such that they can enjoy a sense of what we have for a forum for legitimate redress of grievance regardless of station, class, ethnic origin, gender, or political persuasion.

I do write, I do share my work with the politicos, and I am cynical about them because I have worked numerous times in the past with them. I have served voluntarily in public service and the military. I have worked to support political change and while I have succeeded from time to time, I didn't accomplish anything like the legitimate goals that had inspired me. But I can list more victories than defeats except one, I became jaded by the process, disgusted by the duplicity, and discouraged by the disdain most civic leaders hold the masses in when I actually sat with them for private talks.

I understand the Democratic process and we will never actually achieve it if representational democracy is just a cop-out collective excuse for our non-involvement and we pander to the public to just intentionally polarize the masses in order to manipulate them and distract them from coming to terms with complex divergent interests. I have more trust in our system then most people because I am willing to bet the bank on our IDEALS and put them into practice by giving them a real acid test of global popular opinion. I became jaded by most of the spin doctors and special interest groups I have had the (mis)fortune of dealing with but I have never wavered in my commitment to what is the principle for which our Republic stands.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 12 April 2003 - 12:26 AM.

[bobdrake12]

I do write, I do share my work with the politicos and I am cynical about them because I have worked numerous times in the past with them.

Lazarus Long,

If we are cynical, we are likely not to have a civilization in 40 years.




The clock is ticking. We need alternatives and real solutions otherwise look for a series of NBC wars.


bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 April 2003 - 12:23 AM.

[bobdrake12]

Just as a note.

I was neutral about going to war with Iraq.

I looked for alternatives and heard none that would resolve the problem. I really wanted another way for a multitude of reasons from casualities (both American military and innocent Iraqi people - including Iraqi soldiers held at gunpoint by foreigners forcing the Iraqi soldiers to continue to fight) to selfish ones such as the cost of the war that will need to be paid for by my tax dollars.

No, I did not want war with Iraq. Kissinger sensed this in this Forum and was correct in his assessment.

Unfortunately, I found no real solution (nor read one post offered in this Forum that provided one) to Saddam's regime other than going to war.

This is very sad. I cannot express how sad I feel. It is a deep hurt. A lot of decent people lost their possessions, were injured, were permanently disabled and even lost their lives. There is nothing trivial about war if you have had to face the consequences of war in a personal manner.

Yes, it is very sad.

If we have no creativity to solve real problems, we will have a series of more wars.

Unconditional love sounds nice, but certainly is not the answer for a parent who was forced to watch one of their children having their eyes gouged out.

If we really want to prevent war, we need to resolve the real issues.




Saddam's regime was a ticking time bomb that had to go. His regime was built upon atrocities, fear and lies.


The issue: No justice, no peace.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 April 2003 - 12:59 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

The clock is ticking. We need alternatives and real solutions otherwise look for a series of NBC wars.

A COMMONLY RECOGNIZED RULE of LAW IS THE ALTERNATIVE [!] [!]

[bobdrake12]

I became jaded by most of the spin doctors and special interest groups I have had the (mis)fortune of dealing with but I have never wavered in my commitment to what is the principle for which our Republic stands.

Lazarus Long,

The Founding Fathers of the US had every reason to be jaded, yet they looked for real solutions and created this great Republic.

This Republic is a gift given to each natural citizen in the US.

Those like my wife, who fled from a tyranical dictatorship to the US to become a naturalized citizen, appreciate this gift even more than I do. A number of people in my wife's family were tortured and murdered by that tyranical regime just because of political reasons.

Those who have not experience such atrocities can count themselves as lucky. I am recognizing this fact more and more each day. Maybe someday I will appreciate the US as much as my wife does.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 April 2003 - 01:27 AM.