952 replies to this topic

[bobdrake12]

When I argued that we should add constriction to containment such that we methodically reduced Saddamn's controls and assets so as to prevent the kind of chaos we are experiencing

Lazarus Long,

Did you intentionally spell Saddam as "Saddamn"? If so, it makes perfect sense with me.

If you posted the quote above on this Forum, I missed it.

That was an excellent idea!

These are the kinds of solutions I am looking for!

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 April 2003 - 08:13 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

How about giving solutions?

If you do and they make sense, I will write my Representatives.

All I ask for are sourced facts and solutions.

bob

I have been. I have said we need to engage Iran, not threaten them. We are holding the Kurds back but they too will require more before this is over to prevent them from starting a revolution in the North. The Afghanistan model won't work in Iraq, it is barely working there.

We are going to have talk with the enemy not just our friends; and our "friends" like Israel, consider this treacherous but it is long past due regardless. We must create a global coalition of the principal superpowers and start multilateral talks about how we can not only redistribute some of the lucrative contracts to non-aligned nations with no axe to grind but that may be able to go in truly neutral. Lets go back before the UN with creative proposals that asks for participation of Buddhist countries like China, Vietnam, Burma, Cambodia, Japan, South Korea to come in to help with peacekeeping as this would force them to open their eyes to the world, work together, and prevent the partisanship of force that is likely to come next from less objective evangelical fundamentalists of both Christian and Islamic persuasion. But bringing in MORE foreigners also bears its own inherent risks of upsetting domestic population.

We should establish a "goal oriented agenda” not a calendar based time table for withdrawal but these goals should be clearly established THROUGH MULTILATERAL TRANSPARENT negotiations that the entire world can observe though the mass media but also be supported by quieter negotiations in the wings once objectives are outlined that then have to be brought back for review before the court of world opinion.

We need to work diligently to bring the Islamic community back into this; not intentionally sideline them and flaunt our military prowess. As a backdrop to this, the whole time we must now also be on our guard because I will guarantee some percentage of the "volunteers" coming to our aid will be terrorist operatives attempting a covert insertion for the forming of sleeper cells and future sabotage of all we attempt.

To do this we need to ask for cooperation from not only the States that have supported us but demonstrate magnanimity by also inviting Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iran to participate. If this approach to addressing global terrorism in the region can be cemented it will strengthen the resolve of these States to assist perhaps as well in Afghanistan later. But a few aspects must be clear up front for participation and that is a commitment to the methods and THE CURRENTLY ESTABLISHED BORDERS.

If we open this can of worms it won't stop like it did in Yugoslavia with just a few smaller States coming into existence it will start a firestorm that is the goal of the true enemy to undermine all stability in the region.

Israel is not going to be happy with this coalition and we should expect a powerful lobby to prevent it as well as attempt the sabotage of the process by the more extremist elements of that society but it can be done if Israeli security is guaranteed and formal recognition granted to them AND by them to a Palestinian State whose borders will also have to be defended for a while by "coalition forces".

This is just a beginning, and it should be noted that little more than preparations can be made at this time until the firestorm is put out on the ground. But as we go forward we cannot be complacent that the hard work is over for in fact it is just beginning and the American People are going to need to be educated to the reality of Global Welfare programs, not just Global Warfare. To do this we need to be very sure that “if it isn't broken we aren't trying to fix it” but “if it is broken” we should make little commitment to the status quo.

We should be honest up front and ask for the draft to be reinstituted also because we need more force in the field and using Special Forces to Police a beat on the Street is like using Tigers to guard sheep. We need to change our Policy Commitment to redefine "Policing” and recognize that denial won't change the nature of the problem. And of course you know my biggest beef, we must go back and work to LEGITIMIZE the UN not consistently and continuously work to undermine and eviscerate it, especially if it doesn't follow our Command.

This is just a beginning of a dialogue on this issue and perhaps we here in this forum should open a new topic on this because this one is reaching the final chapters of its usefulness and reflects not only more a history lesson at this point but also one that isn't any longer a hypothetical "Should The US Invade Iraq?"

Been there, done that.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 12 April 2003 - 11:25 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Lazarus Long,

You do not get constructive engagement with a liar called Saddam. I trust that you do not need me to repost the known lies of Saddam's Minister of Information again.

You are looking for consensus with countries like Syria which are tyrannical dictatorships boarding on Iraq? Since when would it be in the best interest of Syria to have a Free Iraq?

That is the point. Syria is not a true dictatorship of the type that Saddam's was. First of all Bashir is a recently installed "compromise" by the military and the parties that supported his father. But Bashir is actually an Oxford educated dentist. Syria is an example like Iran of a nation that’s already in transition and if we create some carrots instead of sticks they might be able to begin a serious evolution toward democratic reform. Iran's democratic traditions predate our intent AND grotesque historic intervention to PREVENT them from achieving a Democracy. Don't forget Mossadeq in 1953 and the installation of the Shah. I guarantee they haven't forgotten.

But Iranians DO want Democratic reform so here is an educated and sympathetic population that is ready to do peacefully and without intervention what we claim to want for them. If we instead threaten them now then we are in fact causing the suppression of the reform movement and FORCING a violent outcome.

It is most definitely in the interests of the entire region and Syria as well to reduce tensions and open trade along the traditional east west routes. Syria would benefit much more from that than from war, but again so much returns to the Israeli-Palestinian issue and without true and FAIR resolution there no other problem will get solved for this is a CORE concern for all the parties. Syria today has a history of keeping "peace in Lebanon and this has not gone all that well for them. They too would like a Mediterranean port and have long wanted to divide that country to meet their objectives. By creating a peaceful resolution that grants them trade access to the sea then their objectives could be accomplished through trade and make military ambitions irrelevant.

Beware of just believing labels. Most of the regimes we are supporting in that region are all monarchies and can be construed to be dictatorships too. Jordan and Syria have both recently gone through generational transitions that have untested leaderships. This would be an opportunity for them both to establish their own mark on history clearly, for good or ill.

I understand that Saddam was beyond talking to that is why Constriction was necessary as well as containment but these other State HAVE NOT SPONSORED STATE TERRORISM AGAINST OUR COUNTRY per se, they have supported groups that have warred against Israel and hate us too. But they DID NOT SUPPORT al Qaeda. If we push them over the edge they will have no choice as their own populations will demand they support the extremists.

But before we act so righteous don't forget that the largest financial contributor to the radical IRA for decades was the Irish community of the United States and this didn’t stop the US and Britain from routinely working in support of our rational collective interests.

When apartheid was rejected and opposed by Britain we continued to "officially” support South Africa and many of us contributed ALL forms of aid to the rebel groups even as our government was supporting UNITA Rebels and their slaughter of innocents so accept that this is more arcane then most will be comfortable with up front.

Iran is complex not as monolithic as Syria and there are MANY diverse interests there as well as a new generation that didn't fight the Islamic Revolution. Also many, many of the real hard core Revolutionary Guard were killed in the Iran/Iraq war that we fomented and was a principle reason the two countries became even more radicalized then they were already. The mullahs of Iran are more Judges than simple demagogues but there are still hard line militarists that need to get contained and confronted but carefully and if we want to be too righteous I would remind you we have the same problem already in Pakistan, which is ostensibly our ally.

We aren't going to force a solution in the long run and we need to really make an attempt to win hearts and minds. And we will never succeed in imposing "Our Road Map" negotiated unilaterally and in secret upon various peoples that were not consulted as to its design.

This Adminstration has a historic opportunity to alter an apocalyptic outcome but remember this is also a group that wanted nothing more than to ignore the problem until they found God in 9/11. We must stop the excess of extremist response on our part as well. We must encourage a dialogue of moderates from the region and cultivate and PROTECT them against the regional extremists that would like nothing more than to identify and eliminate them if they can't be suborned. If moderates want to control the process then there must also be a concurrent commitment to the process on our part or the polemic will be as it already has been, controlled by the most radical elements.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 12 April 2003 - 09:21 PM.

[bobdrake12]

We are going to have talk with the enemy not just our friends; and our "friends" like Israel consider this treacherous but it is long past due regardless. We must create a global coalition of the principal superpowers and start multilateral talks about how we can not only redistribute some of the lucrative contracts to non-aligned nations with no axe to grind but that may be able to go in truly neutral. Lets go back before the UN with creative proposals that asks for participation of Buddhist countries like China, Vietnam, Burma, Cambodia, Japan, South Korea to come in to help with peacekeeping as this would force them to open their eyes to the world, work together, and prevent the partisanship of force that is likely to come next from less objective evangelical fundamentalists of both Christian and Islamic persuasion. But bringing in MORE foreigners also bears its own inherent risks of upsetting domestic population.

Lazarus Long,

What do the people of Iraq want?

Should this not have a priority?

We need to work diligently to bring the Islamic community back into this; not intentionally sideline them and flaunt our military prowess. As a backdrop to this, the whole time we must now also be on our guard because I will guarantee some percentage of the "volunteers" coming to our aid will be terrorist operatives attempting a covert insertion for the forming of sleeper cells and future sabotage of all we attempt.

If you are looking for consensus, I disagree. For example, it is not in Syria's best interest to have a Free Iraq.

If you are talking about discussions to understand goals where possible collaborative solutions can be determined, I agree.

We should be honest up front and ask for the draft to be reinstituted also because we need more force in the field and using Special Forces to Police a beat on the Street is like using Tigers to guard sheep. we need to change our Policy Commitment to redefine "Policing" and recognize that denial won't change the nature of the problem. And of course you know my biggest beef, we must go back and work to LEGITIMIZE the UN not consistently and continuously work to undermine and eviscerate it, especially if it doesn't follow our Command.

The UN was an extreem disappointment. France appeared to vote with their wallet. But I do agree in discussion on key points.


Lazarus Long, you are to be credited for coming forward with ideas and solutions. This is what I am looking for.


bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 April 2003 - 09:07 PM.

[bobdrake12]

We aren't going to force a solution in the long run and we need to really make an atempt to win hearts and minds.

Lazarus Long,

Some might disagree, but I agree.

The most significant thing the US can do is to live up to its word by establishing a Free Iraq. This needs to be a #1 priority of the US.

Perhaps, this commitment needs to be the starting point.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 April 2003 - 09:27 PM.

[bobdrake12]

I just heard some terrible news from one of the TV stations. It reported that the Red Cross in unaware of the location of the American POWs.

bob

[bobdrake12]

Let's see how this plays out. I would expect this guy to coverup (CNN style) what he was doing at first as well as any knowledge of Saddam's atrocities.

bob


http://story.news.ya...science_adviser

Sat, Apr 12, 2003

Saddam's Science Aide Surrenders to U.S. (excerpts)

By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s science adviser surrendered to U.S. military authorities Saturday, becoming the first of the 55 most wanted Iraqi figures to go into coalition custody. He insisted that Iraq (news - web sites) had no weapons of mass destruction and that the war was unjustified.




Iraqi Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, is shown in a deck of 55 playing-sized cards that feature members of Iraqi leadership on the U.S. Central Command's list of 55 most wanted Iraqis.

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 April 2003 - 09:28 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

If you are looking for consensus, I disagree. For example, it is not in Syria's best interest to have a Free Iraq.

I agree that Syria has interests that are contradictory but not exclusively. They are more complex then we are giving them credit for and there are points of negotiation and as we have demonstrated our military resolve it would behoove us to engage the more moderate factions that can achieve some advantage through cooperation with us.

Remember the real enemy; al Qaeda would like nothing better than to topple them as well. Our people and our media tends to paint with too broad a brush the groups involved and only those that take the time to do their homework find out about the "nuances'.

Syria is well organized and probably now in possession of WMD's that have leaked out of Iraq but they are not as interested in directly opposing us right now because of the probably blowback of instability at home and an attack from our forces. I think they are more interested in protecting their territorial integrity than trying to "exploit" Iraq's current instability. It is ironic however that they do possess peacekeeping experience from Lebanon.

The Syrian government is a military autocracy not a simplistic dictatorship. It is one that more resembles Pakistan than Iraq.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 12 April 2003 - 09:59 PM.

[bobdrake12]

I agree that Syria has interests that are contradictory but not exclusively. They are more complex then we are giving them credit for and there are points of negotiation and as we have demonstrated our military resolve it would behoove us to engage the more moderate factions that can achieve some advantage thruogh cooperation with us.

Remember the real enemy, al Qaeda would like nothing better than to topple them as well. Our people and our media tends topaint with too broad a brush the gruops involved and only those that take the time to do their homework find out about the "nuances'. Syria is organized and probably now in possession of WMD's that leaked out of Iraq but they are not as interested in directly opposing us right now because of the probably blowback of instability at home and an attack from our forces. I think they are more interseted in protect their territorial integrity than trying to "exploit" Iraq's current instability. It is ironic however that they do possess peacekeeping experience from Lebanon.

Lazarus Long,

Thanks for the feedback. Now we are talking.

I just heard another Iraqi leader on TV. Again I am impressed. He made more sense that some of my Representatives do here in CA, and I respect my Representatives.

I am beginning to see that a Free Iraq could become a reality sooner than I originally thought.

If the interference against a Free Iraq can be minimized, Iraq will be Free!!!

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 April 2003 - 09:44 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

In part we caused the problem with the Red Cross because of both the rush in and OUR orders to the UN and all NGO's to get out of the way. I see this in the category of a "friendly fire" incident because we have been hamstringing any agency we didn't have absolute control over and the Red Cross was ignored in its efforts to seek the where abouts of our POW's and events overtook their best efforts.

Also as I said before I believed the troops were taken by irregulars after the first group ended up handed over to the torturers. Al-Sadi is going to stick to his line until contradictory evidence is produced to refute him because he isn't likely to incriminate himself any more than Milosevic. I read about him this morning.

The most significant thing the US can do is to live up to its word by establishing a Free Iraq. This needs to be a #1 priority of the US.

Perhaps, this commitment needs to be the starting point.

This is only logical and I think we can all agree that much of our effort will be judged by the success of how we LEAVE Iraq not how we found it. And we can count on a wide variety of groups to work diligently to sabotage all our best efforts from extremists to corrupt corporations that compete unfairly for advantage in the contract process. Again this is why the UN was too important to ignore going into this because any and everything we do now has a double burden of legitimacy such that we are guilty until proven innocent and must shoulder ALL responsibility whether we want to OR NOT.

But there will be no Free Iraq until we have first put out the raging wildfires of chaos that they are now enduring and this too is all too reminiscent of Vietnam and our desire to force reform them that lead into the Pacification Programs, which eventually blew back at us with a vengeance.

I agree about a Free Iraq but the commitment isn't even going to be enough if the best come forward and are all assassinated one by one and together. We have a major task before us and one that I do not envy our personnel assigned the task. Like I said this will get more arcane before better. First we must put out the fire BEFORE it spreads.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 12 April 2003 - 09:57 PM.

[DJS]

I am looking for sourced facts and solutions.

If they make sense, I will write my Representatives.

bob

Lazarus, you crack me up. Bob keeps asking you for sourced facts and solutions and you keep giving him the same "blame America first" diatribe. Kidding, kidding...

check out this website -- www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com

From the website:

"In an age of spin, al-Sahaf offers feeling and authenticity. His message is consistent -- unshakeable, in fact, no matter the evidence -- but he commands daily attention by his on-the-spot, invective-rich variations on the theme. His lunatic counterfactual art is more appealing than the banal awfulness of the Reliable Sources. He is a Method actor in a production that will close in a couple of days. He stands superior to truth."

-- Jean-Pierre McGarrigle

Edited by Kissinger, 12 April 2003 - 10:56 PM.

[DJS]

Some of the stuff from the site about the Iraqi Information Minister. I was reading this garbage and laughing so hard I nearly fell off my chair. lol

-- Current Quote of the Day, 4/12 --

No, MSS did not surface again yesterday. However we are now stunned to hear that he was not fortunate enough to have been honored with the inclusion of his increasingly popular image in the "Death Pack" of cards distributed to coalition forces. We agree with NBC news which called him "curiously absent."

4/10 -- M.S.S did not show up for work. However, our intrepid editors have been able to find his actual, final quote from Tuesday. As usual, we are not making this up:
"I NOW INFORM YOU THAT YOU ARE TOO FAR FROM REALITY."

Also, by popular request we now proudly present the "pencil quote":
"The authority of the civil defense ... issued a warning to the civilian population not to pick up any of those pencils because they are booby traps," he said, adding that the British and American forces were "immoral mercenaries" and "war criminals" for such behavior.
"I am not talking about the American people and the British people," he said. "I am talking about those mercenaries. ... They have started throwing those pencils, but they are not pencils, they are booby traps to kill the children."

Honorable mention in the "I wish I was M.S.S." category goes to Mohsen Khalil, Iraq's Ambassador to the Arab League for this beauty:
"Iraq will not be defeated. Iraq has now already achieved victory - apart from some technicalities."

-- The All Time Greats --

"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"

"My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all"

"Our initial assessment is that they will all die"

"I blame Al-Jazeera - they are marketing for the Americans!"

"God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of Iraqis."

"We have destroyed 2 tanks, fighter planes, 2 helicopters and their shovels - We have driven them back."

"They're coming to surrender or be burned in their tanks."

"No I am not scared and neither should you be!"

"We have them surrounded in their tanks"

"The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"

"Let the American infidels bask in their illusion"

Britain "is not worth an old shoe"

"we have given them a sour taste"

Of US troops: "They are most welcome. We will butcher them."

"We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

"We are in control. They are in a state of hysteria. Losers, they think that by killing civilians and trying to distort the feelings of the people they will win. I think they will not win, those bastards."

“We have placed them in a quagmire from which they can never emerge except dead”

"Washington has thrown their soldiers on the fire"

"These cowards have no morals. They have no shame about lying"

"They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any
place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are
trying to sell to the others an illusion."

"We will kill them all........most of them."

"They do not even have control over themselves! Do not believe them!"

"Faltering forces of infidels cannot just enter a country of 26 million people and lay besiege to them! They are the ones who will find themselves under siege. Therefore, in reality whatever this miserable Rumsfeld has been saying, he was talking about his own forces. Now even the American command is under siege."

"They tried to bring a small number of tanks and personnel carriers in through al-Durah but they were surrounded and most of their infidels had their throats cut."

"Our estimates are that none of them will come out alive unless they surrender to us quickly."

"We made them drink poison last night and Saddam Hussein's soldiers and his great forces gave the Americans a lesson which will not be forgotten by history. Truly."

"On this occasion, I am not going to mention the number of the infidels who were killed and the number of destroyed vehicles. The operation continues"

"We're giving them a real lesson today. Heavy doesn't accurately describe the level of casualties we have inflicted."

"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have
started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We
will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."

"Their infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad. Be assured, Baghdad is safe, protected."

"NO", snapped Mr al-Sahaf, "We have retaken the airport. There are NO Americans there. I will take you there and show you. IN ONE HOUR!"

"We defeated them yesterday. God willing, I will provide you
with more information. I swear by God, I swear by God, those
who are staying in Washington and London have thrown these
mercenaries in a crematorium."

"Please, please! The Americans are relying on what I called yesterday a desperate and stupid method."

"They will be burnt. We are going to tackle them"

"We blocked them inside the city. Their rear is blocked"

"Desperate Americans"

"Today we slaughtered them in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport. The force that was in the airport, this force was destroyed."

"Their casualties and bodies are many."

[On surrenders] "Those are not Iraqi soldiers at all. Where did they bring them from?"

"Just look carefully, I only want you to look carefully. Do not repeat the lies of liars. Do not become like them. Once again, I blame al-Jazeera before it ascertains what takes place. Please, make sure of what you say and do not play such a role."

"Search for the truth. I tell you things and I always ask you to verify what I say. I told you yesterday that there was an attack and a retreat at Saddam's airport."

"You can go and visit those places. Nothing there, nothing at all. There are Iraqi checkpoints. Evrything is okay."

"This boa, the American columns, are being besieged between Basra and other towns north, west, south and west of Basra....Now even the American command is under siege. We are hitting it from the north, east, south and west. We chase them here and they chase us there."

"By God, I think this is rather very unlikely. This is merely a prattle. The fact is that as soon as they reach baghdad gates, we will besiege them and slaughter them....Wherever they go they will find themselves encircled."

"Listen, this explosion does not frighten us any langer. The cruise missiles do not frighten anyone. We are catchign them like fish in a river. I mean here that over the past two days we managed to shoot down 196 missiles before they hit their target."

"Blair...is accusing us of executing British soldiers. We want to tell him that we have not executed anybody. They are either killed in battle, most of them get killed because they are cowards anyway, the rest they just get captured."

"They fled. The American louts fled. Indeed, concerning the fighting waged by the heroes of the Arab Socialist Baath Party yesterday, one amazing thing really is the cowardice of the American soldiers. we had not anticipated this."

"the louts of colonialism."

"The forces of American colonialism began to drop containers that produce a sound explosion, a very huge sound. I remind you that they said that their strategy is based on shock and awe. Those failed ones manufactured a type of container that has an explosive substance, which they drop. They cause a very huge explosion in terms of sound, as if the universe was shaken. After a while, you go out and you don't find anything. You find some nails, screws, pieces of metal, but the important thing here is the sound. Those failed ones think that through the huge sound explosion, people would be shocked and consequently would collapse and be defeated. What happened? The contrary. The fighters..., the masses..., and the heroic sons of the Iraqi tribes discovered this game. They will turn it against the American louts so as to shock them. Wait for surprises, God willing, to see how the US game will fail."

"The shock has backfired on them. They are shocked because of what they have seen. No one received them with roses. They were received with bombs, shoes and bullets. Now, the game has been exposed. Awe will backfire on them. This is the boa snake. We will extend it further and cut it the appropriate way."

"It has been rumored that we have fired scud missiles into Kuwait. I am here now to tell you, we do not have any scud missiles and I don't know why they were fired into Kuwait."

"As for the mercenaries who advanced to the perimeters of Saddam International Airport, I would like to remind you of something. I will mention something that will make the picture clear for you and help you to understand what took place at Saddam International Airport. Most of you probably saw the American movie "Wag the Dog". I hope you remember it. Some of their acts that took place at dawn yesterday and today are similar to what happened in "Wag the Dog". If we succeed in keeping them isolated on that island, and we are determined to do so, we might let them taste a second mini Dien Bien Phu tonight. The European journalists remember it well. Our estimates are that none of them will come out alive unless they surrender to us quickly. They are completely surrounded now. This morning, the number of armoured personnel carriers that were destroyed, along with their occupants, is eight. The number of the tanks destroyed is 11."

"Tonight, we will do something unconventional against them. This means: not by the military. We will do something that I believe will become a pretty example for those mercenaries. I would not be giving out a secret when I say that action in the dark against such mercenaries is effective, not through the action of armies. I say that dropping down those mercenaries in a surprise fashion at Saddam Airport without accurate calculations is largely meant for showing things. It's a showy operation. It is a kind of surprise muscle flexing to the world to show it that the shock and awe operation is indeed successful. May they be accursed. Through this operation [shock and awe], they sent a number of their villains and mercenaries to be butchered. Again, and according to my early estimates, unless the remaining part of their soldiers surrender, the chance for their survival is very slim. The surprising thing is that after they threw their soldiers into a place where they are not aware of the real results, the villainous Americans, like Powell and the others, sat in Europe to discuss how to divide Iraq as spoils after the war [laughing]. This means what's post-war. The post-war [Iraq] will be the same current Iraq under the leadership of President Saddam Husayn."

"We will pursue them as war criminals. We will work with all the free people in the world, and they are many, who want someone to bell the cat [i.e.; to do a daring deed], and now we are belling the cat, according to the famous [Arabic] saying so as to rid the UN of those villains. After Iraq aborts the invasion that is being carried out by the American and British villains, the USA will no longer be a superpower. Its deterioration will be rapid. I say to those villains who are meeting in Europe, thinking of launching psychological war and brainwashing: wait. Do not be hasty because your disappointment will be huge. You will reap nothing from this aggressive war, which you launched on Iraq, except for disgrace and defeat. Iraq will continue to exist. Its civilization is 10,000 years old. It will not be changed by villains like the US and British villains."

"W. Bush, this man is a war criminal, and we will see
that he is brought to trial"

"I think the British nation has never been faced with a tragedy like this fellow [Blair]."

"The United Nations....[is] a place for prostitution under the feet of
Americans."

"They are sick in their minds. They say they brought 65 tanks into center
of city. I say to you this talk is not true. This is part of their sick mind."

"They are superpower of villains. They are superpower of Al Capone."

Americans are "wild donkeys"

"Iraqi fighters in Umm Qasr are giving the hordes of American and Brtish
mercenaries the taste of definite death. We have drawn them into a
quagmire and they will never get out of it."

"What they say about a breakthrough [in Najaf] is completely an illusion. They are sending their warplanes to fly very low in order to have vibrations on these sacred places . . . they are trying to crack the buildings by flying low over them."

"Their forces committed suicide by the hundreds. ... The battle is very
fierce and God made us victorious. The fighting continues."

"Yesterday, we slaughtered them and we will continue to slaughter them."

"We're going to drag the drunken junkie nose of Bush through Iraq's desert, him and his follower dog Blair...There are 26 million Saddams in Iraq"

"We will push those crooks, those mercenaries back into the swamp"

"When we were making the law, when we were writing the literature and the mathematics the grandfathers of Blair and little Bush were scratching around in caves"

About Bush: "the leader of the international criminal gang of bastards."

About Bush and Rumsfeld: "Those only deserve to be hit with shoes."

Attached Files

•  wirq13.jpg   8.04KB   0 downloads

Edited by Kissinger, 12 April 2003 - 10:41 PM.

[bobdrake12]

CNN

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information

Kissinger,

Great to see you back!

I wonder if this guy will get a job at CNN?

bob

http://www.rushlimba...cnn_.guest.html


EIB

One has to wonder how many lives might have been saved if the press had told the truth about the torture in Iraq. What really angers me is how so many of these news outlets pretended there was no or little basis to the torture stories. Now, all of a sudden, they tell the truth. Perhaps if they had closed their bureaus and gone public with the atrocities, hundreds if not thousands might have been saved.

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 April 2003 - 11:28 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

I wonder if this guy will get a job at CNN?

bob

They have to catch him first, He disappeared. Surprise, surprise...

Oh, and Kissinger I have posted numerous sources to support my postitions from articles to declassified CIA documents and I have never relied on demagoguery from monomaniacal interest groups to either substantiate or even represent my assertions.

When I post I try to include links back to the source material as well, so perhaps instead of attempting to denigrade what I am saying by behaving like the Iraqi Information Minister you so dislike, try reading the material and linking back as well, instead of just harping the same old worn out doctrinaire diatribe about how "we just have to go at it alone and rule the world and if they don't like it tough."

Anyway you are well aware I post information, you have not liked it more than enough of timea but I tend to seek unimpeachable support like the Constitution, speeches of distiguished American Leaders, elements of the historical record, and as I said various Intelligence review papers so I leave it up to you to watch al Jazeera and TV. I will read the reports eminating from around the world that are now so easilly available at my fingertips. I will share them too but I can only lead the horse to water...

Perhaps in your case I post too much and you are seek more of the Sound Bite and Cliffnote approach just kidding lol

Edited by Lazarus Long, 12 April 2003 - 11:44 PM.

[DJS]

Oh, and Kissinger I have posted numerous sources to support my postitions from articles to declassified CIA documents and I have never relied on demagoguery from monomaniacal interest groups to either substantiate or even represent my assertions.

What you call "monomaniacal interest groups", I call the conservative intelligencia. We can argue over policy all you like, but make no mistake, there are intellectual heavy weights on both sides of this debate.

Branding the conservative movement as "neo-fascist" is easy and all too convenient for the Left. But when broken down to its most basic elements it is nothing more than slander. Just because a political movement within the United States has a great deal of passion for its view of the world to come does not mean it can not stand side by side with the core principles of American democracy and freedom.

what I am saying by behaving like the Iraqi Information Minister you so dislike, try reading the material and linking back as well, instead of just harping the same old worn out doctrinaire diatribe about how "we just have to go at it alone and rule the world and if they don't like it tough."

More slander. By grouping me with the Iraqi Information Minister you are implying that I am intellectually dishonest. I am not. I have a point of view and I present that point of view. I never put out false information and claim it to be true. If I did that it would prove that I didn't have the strength of my convictions.

Anyway you are well aware I post information, you have not liked it more than enough of timea but I tend to seek unimpeachable support like the Constitution, speeches of distiguished American Leaders, elements of the historical record, and as I said various Intelligence review papers so I leave it up to you to watch al Jazeera and TV.

I was not commenting on your entire contribution to this thread. I was simply commenting on the last page of the thread where Bob asked you twice for sourced facts and solutions and you proceeded to type a long, winded, albeit impassioned, policy critique of the United States. I know that you have presented plenty of sources to back up your argument. With all of the information available to us today that is the easy part. I find your style of debate attractive, and a bid amusing. I also find O'Rielly amusing when he looks like he is about to burst a blood vessel on his forehead because his "Vidal wannabe" guest is driving him out of his mind. You should take this as a complement. [ggg]

I will read the reports eminating from around the world that are now so easilly available at my fingertips.  I will share them too but I can only lead the horse to water...

Perhaps in your case I post too much and you are seek more of the Sound Bite and Cliffnote approach

Believe it or not I read everything posted on this thread. I may not agree with a given point of view, but that doesn't mean I want to be unaware of the arguments being presented on its behalf. That would be down right ignorant.

[bobdrake12]

Another example of why Saddam's regime needed to go.

bob


http://www.boston.co...cache_of:.shtml

Marines discover huge cache of suicide bomb vests in a school (excerpts)

By Ravi Nessman, Associated Press, 4/12/2003 03:15

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) U.S. marines have found an enormous cache of suicide bomb vests in an elementary school in central Baghdad. On the floor of the science classroom with a picture of Saddam Hussein on the green chalk board there lay nearly 50 black leather vests each packed with C4 explosives and ball bearings.

In a middle school less than 500 feet away Saturday, Marines displayed hundreds of crates filled with rocket propelled grenade launchers, surface to air missiles, shoulder launched rockets and ammunition.

In the first school, less than 20 feet from the nearest home, the suicide vests nearly covered the floor, sealed in plastic and still on hangers. Each powerful bomb weighed at least 20 pounds and was lined with long rectangular blocks of C4 explosives and hundreds of ball bearings. Wires ran through them.

''They were indeed dedicated to do something if they strapped on that vest,'' said Marine Lt. David Wright, 27, of Goldsboro, N.C. He worried that a few hangers were empty and some of the vests might have gone missing. ''Odds are high that someone is out there wearing one,'' he said.

In the school's courtyard, Marines found cardboard boxes filled with detonators with two red switches on one side and Velcro on the other. They also found a roll of red detonation chord, three boxes of dynamite, a crate of electrical chords in a box marked explosives, and stacks of empty hangers.

© Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[DJS]

Cal Thomas
Winners and losers

BELFAST, Northern Ireland There was something comical about the "anti-war" protesters who gathered here for the abbreviated Bush-Blair summit meeting. They were opposing a war that is nearly over. They demonized the victors - who are fighting in a moral cause - and not the losers, who fight to preserve an immoral rule. These protesters' silence during the deposed (and possibly dead) Saddam Hussein's three decades of murder and mayhem makes them irrelevant.

In toting up the winners and losers of this war, the top loser after Saddam Hussein and his regime must be the political left. From Hollywood's Martin Sheen and Michael Moore to European "leaders," the United Nations and aging peaceniks and their illegitimate progeny, the left has suffered a stunning defeat. These losers were wrong from the beginning because their view of humanity and of good and evil is flawed. Evil must be opposed, sometimes by force. As freed Iraqis begin to testify to the horror and degradation imposed on them by Saddam Hussein, the left will be hard pressed to explain why they were again on the wrong side of history. Their credibility is on a par with the Iraqi information minister who claimed that no coalition tanks had entered Baghdad at a time when the tanks could be seen and heard.

Other losers include the Chinese, Russian and French governments, each of which supplied more arms to Saddam Hussein than any other nation. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (cited in Michael Gove's April 8 column in the London Times), between 1973 and 2002 Russia provided 57 percent of Saddam's arms imports, France 13 percent and China 12 percent. The United States supplied just 1 percent at most and Britain less than that. War critics are wrong when they claim that the United States and Britain are primarily responsible for Saddam's weaponry. No wonder the French, Russians and Chinese opposed coalition efforts. They didn't want their complicity and duplicity discovered.

Some in the American and especially British media were losers because they regularly painted a doomsday scenario - from their predictions of a Vietnam-like quagmire to questioning the wisdom of every military move. ABC's Peter Jennings was especially guilty of extreme negativity about coalition policies and progress, but he was no worse than the entire BBC, which appeared to be in need of antidepressants, to say nothing of a shot of truth serum.

The notion that free nations can and should do nothing about oppressed people was a big loser. At a joint news conference with Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush said "free nations have a responsibility to confront terrorism (and) promote human rights across the world." Call this the Jimmy Carter doctrine, but with muscle.

The winners in this conflict are many, starting with the people of Iraq, who have an opportunity (if they will seize it) not only to claim freedom for themselves but also their posterity and to serve as an example to the region, as they once did in ancient times.

President Bush endured the most personal invective to emerge triumphant. At the Hillsborough Castle news conference the president said, "There is a question in Europe about whether I mean what I say. Saddam Hussein now knows I mean what I say." So does the rest of the world.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, along with the commander of the coalition forces, Gen. Tommy Franks, are also winners. They ignored criticism that their plan was flawed, that there were not enough troops committed to the task and that casualty rates would be unacceptably high. None of this proved true.

All of the clergy, academics and commentators who predicted America would lose the war of public opinion and that this "adventure " would produce "a thousand Bin Ladens" are also wrong. Why should it not produce a thousand, or millions, of Winston Churchills and people who want freedom from religious and political dictators?

History has been on the side of freedom, the side President Bush is on. If he is able to expand these freedoms in the Middle East and in Northern Ireland, this president (so reviled by European eunuchs) will be the biggest winner of all

[bobdrake12]

Another example why Saddam's regime had to go.

bob

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/2939125.stm

Saturday, 12 April, 2003, 12:17 GMT 13:17 UK

Iraq's most wanted (excerpts)

By Kathryn Westcott - BBC News Online

American military officials have issued troops with a list of leading 55 Iraqis to be captured or killed. They have handed out packs of playing card-style pictures of the most wanted.




The cards show the Iraqi leaders the US wants captured or killed


The list includes what is left of the so-called "dirty dozen".

This is the name the Bush administration gave Saddam Hussein and his closest officials in autumn 2002 when it was laying the groundwork for prosecutions for chemical attacks, forced deportations, mass killings, torture, and other crimes against humanity.

The list is an illustration of how the country was run - half of the dozen are Saddam Hussein's family members - two sons, three half-brothers and a cousin.

The cousin, Ali Hassan Majid, nicknamed "Chemical Ali" for his role in a 1988 operation that used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq, is believed to have been killed by coalition bombing.

US officials now say Iraqi leaders are trying to escape from the country, while others are believed to be hiding out in Tikrit - the home town of Saddam Hussein's clan.

The following are among Iraq's most wanted:

Saddam Hussein



War crimes claims against the Iraqi leader include genocide of the Kurds, "ethnic cleansing" in which tens of thousands of Kurds, Turkmen, Assyrians around the oil-rich city of Kirkuk were expelled as part of an "Arabisation" programme, mass civilian executions, after the Kurdish and Shia uprisings in 1991, and religious persecution.


Uday Saddam Hussein



Saddam Hussein's 38-year-old son who was commander of Saddam's Fedayeen forces and president of the Iraqi National Olympic Committee. Uday's alleged brutality is legendary in Iraq. According to Indict, the committee seeking to prosecute the Iraqi leadership for war crimes, he was personally engaged in acts of torture and ordered torture by forces under his command. He is said to have routinely abducted and raped women.


Qusay Hussein



Saddam Hussein's younger son and chosen successor. The 36-year-old Qusay was in charge of the Special Republican Guard and the feared intelligence and security services. He is accused of curbing dissident activity in Basra after the failed Shia uprising in 1991 with mass executions and torture.


Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri



The 61-year-old deputy chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and deputy chief of the armed forces is considered to be Saddam Hussein's daily right-hand man. He was born in Tikrit, the Iraqi leader's hometown. He was a key commander in the suppression of the failed Shia uprising in 1991. Indict also accuses Mr Ibrahim of the use of excessive military force against the Marsh Arabs of the south. He escaped an assassination attempt in Karbala in 1998. War crimes charges have been issued against him in Austria.

[bobdrake12]

Some in the American and especially British media were losers because they regularly painted a doomsday scenario - from their predictions of a Vietnam-like quagmire to questioning the wisdom of every military move.

Now that those doomsday scenarios have been proven wrong, has anyone who parroted them had the integrity to admit to being wrong?

So far, I have yet to have read or heard one single retraction.

bob

[Lazarus Long]

Believe it or not I read everything posted on this thread. I may not agree with a given point of view, but that doesn't mean I want to be unaware of the arguments being presented on its behalf. That would be down right ignorant.

Then next time read the entire "New" thread before you make an accusation. Bob was asking me for "suggestions". I had already posted numerous sources for various issues I was addressing in the pages prior. Look at the page number. Bob and I had gone through a running debate for over almost two days non stop. And as for Bob's opinion as to whether I post sources I will leave that to him to say but I was addressing your quip which had been made offhandedly and without merit.

You came in not during the middle, but at the end of our current discussion and Bob wasn't criticizing me for "what" I was claiming and saying, he was asking me to go out on limb and offer my take and perspective on solutions. I simply did.

The sources for that opinion are included prior; as a review of not only this thread but the associated threads (in particular the one on Iran) will demonstrate. I certainly can include more but first lets review what I am proposing. His point was that it is easy to criticize and not take a stand. I happen to agree with that so long as I am conversing with someone that is genuinely asking for my opinion, so I gave it. You may call it long winded, I suggest it is detailed. Frankly it was from the hip, because I gave it spontaneously and unprepared in the spur of the moment but as I have spent much of this debate trying to formulate an alternative strategy I wasn’t entirely unprepared.

I would also suggest that you carefully review what I say about my country because telling the truth about our past is not "bashing it” and trying to gloss over, and cover up the truths of the past is legitimate grounds for calling some in the Neo-Conservative movement Neo-Fascists. But you see I grew up during the McCarthy era so you don't fully grasp the gravity of the debate yet, you confuse a rationalization still with a reason. I have seen a lot of history already in my life and I intend to see some more but I am uninterested in spin, only facts.

And it is a FACT that the CIA, the British government and the oil industry conspired to overthrow a legitimate democratic reform in Iran in 1953 that culminates with the assassination of Mossadeq and the installation of the Shah. That is supported be substantial evidence. It is also the reason I can say that a domestic and legitimate Democratic reform movement coexists in that country with the fundamentalist Mullahs. And again independent observers that have overseen their electoral process also confirm this. Iran is not Iraq.

Also, the support Iran gives to Hizbollah is real and representative of the hard liners of that country. Iran actually has mixed relations with Israel and while little love is lost between extremist groups on either side, Jews still live in Iran with little more restriction than anyone else that must live under sharia law, they haven't been expelled. Get over it, life is more complex then you want it to be. And Israel was trading with Iran under the Shah and could again if we can settle the issue of the Palestinians.

Also the Iranian government has been working all along and before 9/11 against BOTH al Qaeda and the Taliban which WAS in cahoots with the Mohajadeen movement that was inside Iran and working to topple the reform movement and undermine the relative stability of the Iranian theocracy. They are fundamentalist theocrats, something perhaps on one level Bush might even relate to, they have been openly sponsoring paramilitary activity against Israel in Lebanon and among the Palestinians; they have funded Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad BUT NOT in any operation that the CIA or ANY European Intelligence service has detected against the United States.

Iran is in need of reform but that is happening without our intervention and while I am sure some groups there may be exploiting the circumstances to their advantage, what else is new?

Women there have the right to vote, own property, and receive the highest level of education. The regime is backward socially but not a hypocritical self serving dictatorship. Like I said it is more complex, they have been quietly helping us consistently since 9/11 and everyone at the CIA and State knows this. so get a grip the world isn't all black and white. This time the British, Turks, and even the Pakistani are not going to back a border incursion and even the idea of preemptive air strikes is not a good idea, even though the Iranians are expecting those. They have been returning downed pilots and respecting the territorial integrity of Iraq, they have sent in an Iraqi Shiite Mullah with the backing of 10K Iraqi paramilitaries that were refugees in Iran but they have not threatened to cross any borders with their own forces and have prevented any of the ba'athist from crossing their border for refuge. I was only pointing out that it was in Iran’s self interest NOW that Saddamn is gone to have a secure Iraq on the border to trade with. Hence there is a common ground for working together instead of fighting.

Much of the aid poised to go into Iraq is waiting Safe and Sound in Iran to come across WITH international Aid workers in control. The UN, the EU, Britain, and the ENTIRE ISLAMIC world respects Iran sovereignty, and Iran has not made any threatening move against its immediate neighbors as Iraq under Saddam did.

So we need to slow down before making an enemy that has not given us cause OR WE ARE BEHAVING AS FASCISTS. Syria also is not moving to threaten and while they have more aspiration of gaining a piece of Iraq they too are in a transitory phase of development and would prefer to preserve and defend their LEGITIMATE territorial integrity. You seem to keep overlooking what the CIA does not; al Qaeda is trying to topple ALL the States of the region. If we start attacking the other states in that region then we are essentially aiding the enemy as the chaos we are seeing will only be a taste of what will come.

And as for that I predicted the chaos, it has happened; I predicted that assassination would be the factored strategy and this is not even over with. I predicted that we would see al Qaeda operatives disappear out of the fog of war and shifting sympathies and the 10 suspects for the U.S.S. Cole bombing in a maximum security prison in Yemen escaped this morning.

I have nothing to apologize for and as of now my sources are the history of events. I also predicted that we would pass the 100 dead soldier mark by next week and that the steady hits would go on and this too has sadly come to pass. I daily read a pretty large and varied collection of sources for substantive news from as wide ranging a spectrum as the Telegraph of India to the Jerusalem Post.

I take the time to filter OUT most of the opinion except those that spend the time to do what you overlook discuss facts and connect the dots. The Right Wing has a few like Krystal that I happen to respect and Wolfowitz is a shining star at the Pentagon but if you haven't notice my position isn't very different then the one that was proposed by the State Department and the CIA. Or haven't you bothered to assess their position? Go read about it I posted it a few pages back.

I use multiple search engines that filter out news from hundreds (probably thousands) of sources on six continents and I process that information independently daily. I cross reference news stories from Europe, and Asia against what I read at home to establish a baseline for discerning objective fact. I do this not to support a philosophical position but to form one. I also review in more than one language to obtain my take on global opinion, as you might say I get my news straight from the “horse’s mouth”. I review the press in Latin America and Spain to get “their Public opinion assessment, I don’t just read the latest spun polls in the NY Post. Though they won’t stop sending me free papers so I read them too, and then burn them for heat.

Don’t try to impugn my sources Kissinger that won’t be your most powerful argument. And stop saying I am bashing my country by telling the truth of its history. If you don’t like what I say I suggest you review the history and present your take but stop trying to make me wear your rose colored glasses and parrot your false praise. I have taken the oath to defend this Constitution and I will keep it, I don’t have to prove my loyalty to anyone, least of all you.

I keep the Constitution in my pocket and I read our history for pleasure and I am proud to be an American even when the actions of my country and my people are little source of pride to me at times but I take the RESPONSIBILITY of citizenship in a Democracy most seriously and that is why I do not parrot propaganda for anybody but participate in an open democratic debate that is the true bulwark of our strength and true reason for pride. I said as much to Bob and I will reiterate it for you, I am not motivated by gratitude or obligation to this country. I have no “faith” in our system or our people; I have reason to contribute, the will to make our State better, and a commitment to our common well being. I see Freedom in terms of responsibility, not as a gift and you as a great sparring partner, I never get angry with you I am having too much fun.

Lastly again I want to make a suggestion. I think we should consider closing this thread and pinning it for posterity as the subject of “Should we invade Iraq” is now truly moot. It has been a good debate and I want to thank Mangala for starting it, and all those that have participated in it, but I think we should open a new thread focused more upon the present and the future for this subject is now the past and no longer one of conjecture.

Opinions?

[bobdrake12]

http://www.centcom.m...e=200304116.txt

NEWS RELEASE
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND
7115 South Boundary Boulevard
MacDill AFB, Fla.
33621-5101 Phone: (813) 827-5894; FAX: (813) 827-2211; DSN 651-5894

April 12, 2003
Release Number: 03-04-116


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


U.S. MARINE KILLED IN CHECKPOINT INCIDENT

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. Marine from the First Marine Expeditionary Force was shot and killed here on Saturday by a individual carrying a Syrian identification card.

The Marine was guarding a checkpoint at a medical facility when two men, posing as landscape workers, approached the Marine. One man shot and killed the Marine.

Marines nearby shot and killed the Syrian man while the second attacker fled the scene.

The name of the Marine is being withheld pending next of kin notification.

An investigation of the incident is underway.

[bobdrake12]

Check out the article posted directly above.

Sorry, but I do not believe Syria. Do you?

bob


http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/2943501.stm



Saturday, 12 April, 2003, 23:20 GMT 00:20 UK

Syria denies helping Iraqis on run (excerpts)


Syria has reacted with defiance after being urged by the United States not to provide a refuge to associates of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa denied that Damascus was helping the former Iraqi leadership in any way.

He told reporters on Saturday that US accusations were an attempt to divert attention from America's failures in Iraq.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said the Syrian authorities should detain any former Iraqi official seeking refuge in their country, and turn them over to the US.

We think it will be very unwise if suddenly Syria becomes a haven for all these people who should be brought to justice," Mr Powell told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost television programme.

The statement followed a similar warning from President George W Bush on Friday.

Syria - the only Arab member UN Security Council - has been a staunch opponent on the war against Iraq.

"Had the aim of the war been changing the regime in Iraq, we wouldn't have been seeing the suffering we are witnessing now of looting and theft in Iraqi cities," Mr al-Sharaa said.

Edited by bobdrake12, 13 April 2003 - 04:21 AM.

[bobdrake12]

I think we should consider closing this thread and pinning it for posterity as the subject of “Should we invade Iraq” is now truly moot.

Lazarus Long,

I plan to continue posting on this thread. In fact, this is the only thread on this Forum I plan to post on.

This is because there are still to many open issues such as what is being found in Iraq after the war (e.g. "In a middle school less than 500 feet away Saturday, Marines displayed hundreds of crates filled with rocket propelled grenade launchers, surface to air missiles, shoulder launched rockets and ammunition.")

Sorry, I do not want to close it. Close it, and I am out of here.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 13 April 2003 - 04:31 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

Whose war are we fighting anyway?

I haven't felt any need to retract anything I said would happen, most of it is still happening and some of it already has. I never said we couldn't defeat saddam's army and there was no use of WMD's which I am very grateful for. And one of the casualities of the Bush Blair summet in Northern Ireland appears to have been their peace process which was supposed to get signed next week and now is in limbo. I have also outlined other aspects I thought were likely and many of my concerns are STILL concerns so what is there to retract, that I think this was an illegal war?

Nope I still think we were wrong and it will haunt us as it already is.

Here is the an outspoken ally for your take Mr. Kissinger and one with a realtionship with Gen. Garner that is promising to be problematic for up coming negotiations for an independent Iraqi government. Though Garner will get through anyway probably.


http://www.timesonli...-469972,00.html
Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel
From Stephen Farrell, Robert Thomson and Danielle Haas
November 05, 2002

ISRAEL’S Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete.

In an interview with The Times , Mr Sharon insisted that Tehran — one of the “axis of evil” powers identified by President Bush — should be put under pressure “the day after” action against Baghdad ends because of its role as a “centre of world terror”. He also issued his clearest warning yet that Israel would strike back if attacked by Iraqi chemical or biological weapons, no matter how much Washington sought to keep its controversial Middle Eastern ally out of any war in Iraq.

He made clear that western Iraq would be one of the first areas targeted by the US in any invasion, saying that lessons had been learnt from strategic mistakes of the 1991 Gulf War when Iraq successfully fired 39 Scud missiles into Israel.

Mr Sharon, 74, was speaking as he conducted high-level negotiations to keep his Government afloat after the desertion of his centrist coalition partners. Last night he survived three no-confidence votes, giving him more time to forge a coalition with small right-wing parties. He rejected calls for early elections.

The Knesset also approved the appointment of Shaul Mofaz, the hawkish former Israeli Army chief, as Defence Minister.

But even as the Knesset voted, a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up inside a shopping centre in central Israel, killing at least one other person and injuring 20.

In other significant changes of tone and policy, Mr Sharon told The Times that:

Yassir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, could have an ongoing role as a “symbol”, but could not have a role overseeing financial or security functions. This was a departure from previous statements that Mr Arafat was entirely “irrelevant”.

Mr Sharon himself would continue to lead the country, elections willing, for up to five years. There had been widespread speculation that he would retire within two years.

The Israeli Government is considering an unprecedented crackdown on the Islamic movement within its own borders, fearing that a “small minority” of Israeli Arabs are turning against the country.
He asserted that while Washington was inevitably focusing on Saddam Hussein — whom he called “insane” — the White House shared his concern that Iran was also seeking weapons of mass destruction, and developing missiles capable of striking Israel and even Europe.

“I talked about these things with Vladimir Putin a few days ago and I have been to Washington and one of the things I talked about was what will be (sic) later, if Iraq is going to be disarmed.

“One of the things I mentioned is that the free world should take all the necessary steps to prevent irresponsible countries from having weapons of mass destruction: Iran, Iraq of course, and Libya is working on a nuclear weapon.”

He accused Tehran of sponsoring the Lebanese Shia militia, Hezbollah, which he claimed had up to 10,000 short-range missiles stationed in Lebanon ready to strike Israeli towns, of smuggling weapons to the Palestinian Authority, and of trying to turn Israel’s one million Arab citizens against the Jewish state. “Iran is a centre of world terror and Iran makes every effort to possess weapons of mass destruction on the one hand and ballistic missiles,” he said. “That is a danger to the Middle East, to Israel and a danger to Europe.

“They are working now on a ballistic missile of 1,300km. They have almost reached this range already. They were talking in the past about 2,500km and even 5,000km.”

Mr Sharon made it abundantly clear that he would not hold back from retaliating, as Israel did at Washington’s behest in 1991, if his nation came under serious attack. “First, we understand the sensitivity. We are living here, we were born here. Israel will make every effort not to interfere,” he said.

But he warned: “If Israel, and I made it very clear, is attacked by weapons of mass destruction . . . Israel will react. Is it clear? I believe that they understand that Israel will not be able not to defend itself.”

Mr Sharon reiterated that he was willing to work toward the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, but demanded that progress toward it be measured by concrete improvements in security on the ground.

[bobdrake12]

I have also outlined other aspects I thought were likely and many of my concerns are STILL concerns so what is there to retract, that I think this was an illegal war?

Lazarus Long,

I am happy that you are using the term "I think" rather than stating what you think as fact.

And no, I do not think the US should attack Iran unless Iran shows provocation to be attacked. The US needs to act in its own self-interest.

Syria might be a different issue. Hopefully, some discussions might eliviate that situation. Any suggestions there?

bob

[Lazarus Long]

That is your choice Bob; I won't force its closure. We have 75 pages now and if you wish to pursue the "legal aspects of this war more I guess we can but I think that we should consider opening a new thread that deals with the present situation and the future of Iraq and not try to any longer debate the justifications of what we are doing at the same time.

I am simply being pragmatic, I don't agree that we should have done this the way we did and that is past, it is now a "historical debate" I would prefer to engage Kissinger and you in precisely what you asked me, where to go from here?

As for the Syrians, I believe they are receiving some of the Iraqi upper echelon even if the government is "unaware" (which I doubt) because that border is too porous to prevent it anyway and satellite observation indicates that a lot of border crossing is occurring and I suggest that if WMD's did exist they would love to get their hands upon them. I did not make the same claim with regard to Iran because due to the hostilities the border between Iran and Iraq is far less porous and there is also already a sizable International contingent even from Britain in Iran observing. I do not yet believe they have determined to in anyway confront the US in Iraq. Syria is in too vulnerable a position between US and Israeli forces but if we go into Syria jointly with Israel then the entire Arab world WILL rise up against our efforts and all bets are off. This is an unnecessary move.

The problem is that the paramilitary groups are quasi independent and have long moved back and forth across these borders with little impediment. Those groups are probably going into and out of Iraq. We know some of them are joined with the irregular forces now and have been involved in various actions. Numerous extremist sympathizers crossed into Iraq in the weeks before the war even from Kuwait.

Also I think much of this will die down as we secure the border there, which we must first do anyway to secure our occupation of Iraq. A key issue to discuss and make clear is that do these states wish to develop secure borders or do they want to continue to with a nod and a wink allow widespread violation of each others teritorial integrity thrugh covert border crssings?

Iran is less of a concern in this but I think even Syria can be brought into the fold. As I said this will be the first test of its leader and he is more western and moderate then his own backers have let him be. He desires reform but is kept in power as a compromise between competing interests and the army that was loyal to his father. This would be a real coup if Bashir could be given a means of untangling his "embeddedness" with extremists. Again the model here is Pakistan, which was doing business with the Taliban up until we attacked.

Syria's army is the key, there is still room to negotiate if they can be granted a way to transition and retain territorial integrity, they are also more "professional" and have depended "less" (especially in the last few years) on being an instrument of torture for a cult of personality.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 13 April 2003 - 05:00 AM.

[bobdrake12]

His point was that it is easy to criticize and not take a stand. I happen to agree with that so long as I am conversing with someone that is genuinely asking for my opinion, so I gave it.

Kissinger,

There were something like 7 pages of posts between LL and my self the past couple of days. You need to check out the most recent ones between LL and myself.

The fact is that I was looking for solutions rather than just criticism. I am genuinely asking for opinions, not only LL's, but everyone's.

To LL's credit, he did give his opinions. I disagreed to an extent on some and agreed somewhat with others, but I do give LL credit for stating his solutions.

The situation in Iraq is a very fluid one. One of my major concerns is that Syria might try to distabilize the process to make a Free Iraq.

I think that if we can become more solution-oriented, we might make this thread more beneficial.

bob

[bobdrake12]

As for the Syrians, I believe they are receiving some of the Iraqi upper echelon even if the government is "unaware" (which I doubt) because that border is too porous to prevent it anyway and satellite observation indicates that a lot of border crossing is occurring and I suggest that if WMD's did exist they would love to get their hands upon them. I did not make the same claim with regard to Iran because due to the hostilities the border between Iran and Iraq is far less porous and there is also already a sizable International contingent even from Britain in Iran observing. I do not yet believe they have determined to in anyway confront the US in Iraq.

Lazarus Long,

I read the Syria situation somewhat the way you have including the Iraqi upper echelon and the WMDs.

I strongly feel the US needs to keep Israel out of this conflict.

bob

[bobdrake12]

I would prefer to engage Kissinger and you in precisely what you asked me, where to go from here?

Lazarus Long,

Do as you wish, but there are other loose ends that need to be posted as I pointed out in an earlier post.

We learn from history or we don't learn.

With that said, where we go from here is very important.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 13 April 2003 - 05:00 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

I will leave the thread open (I was asking opinions not threatening to act unilaterally ) but I am distinguishing the historical perspective from the ongoing practical political date about current and proposed policy.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 13 April 2003 - 05:10 AM.