Iraq exit strategy: go through Iran

[PTH]

www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4110


WASHINGTON, DC—Almost a year after the cessation of major combat and a month after the nation's first free democratic elections, President Bush unveiled the coalition forces' strategy for exiting Iraq.

"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Defense and I have formulated a plan for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," Bush announced Monday morning. "We'll just go through Iran."

Bush said the U.S. Army, which deposed Iran's longtime enemy Saddam Hussein, should be welcomed with open arms by the Islamic-fundamentalist state.

"And Iran's so nearby," Bush said. "It's only a hop, skip, and a jump to the east."

According to White House officials, coalition air units will leave forward air bases in Iraq and transport munitions to undisclosed locations in Iran. After 72 to 96 hours of aerial-bomb retreats, armored-cavalry units will retreat across the Zagros mountains in tanks, armored personnel carriers, and strike helicopters. The balance of the 120,000 troops will exit into the oil-rich borderlands around the Shatt-al-Arab region within 30 days.

Pentagon sources said U.S. Central Command has been formulating the exit plan under guidelines set by Bush.

"The fact is, we've accomplished our goals in Iraq," said General George Casey, the commander of coalition forces in the Iraqi theater. "Now, it's time to bring our men and women home—via Iran."

.....

[Disgruntled70sHab]

PTH said:

www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4110


WASHINGTON, DC—Almost a year after the cessation of major combat and a month after the nation's first free democratic elections, President Bush unveiled the coalition forces' strategy for exiting Iraq.

"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Defense and I have formulated a plan for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," Bush announced Monday morning. "We'll just go through Iran."

Bush said the U.S. Army, which deposed Iran's longtime enemy Saddam Hussein, should be welcomed with open arms by the Islamic-fundamentalist state.

"And Iran's so nearby," Bush said. "It's only a hop, skip, and a jump to the east."

According to White House officials, coalition air units will leave forward air bases in Iraq and transport munitions to undisclosed locations in Iran. After 72 to 96 hours of aerial-bomb retreats, armored-cavalry units will retreat across the Zagros mountains in tanks, armored personnel carriers, and strike helicopters. The balance of the 120,000 troops will exit into the oil-rich borderlands around the Shatt-al-Arab region within 30 days.

Pentagon sources said U.S. Central Command has been formulating the exit plan under guidelines set by Bush.

"The fact is, we've accomplished our goals in Iraq," said General George Casey, the commander of coalition forces in the Iraqi theater. "Now, it's time to bring our men and women home—via Iran."

.....

And the plot thickens. The date on this column is March 12th. However, of these two Nimitz Class carriers, the Roosevelt is on station now and the Carl Vinson will be there shortly. There is a third carrier group tagged to augment this force, but I don't know the name of the carrier.

Converging U.S. Navy aircraft carrier groups in Middle East send strong message to Iran and Syria
Sudhir Chadda
Mar. 12, 2005

The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt is on the move in Atlantic Ocean and is possibly headed towards the Mediterranean Sea. The convergence of three carrier groups in the corridor of the Middle East will send very strong message to the Syrians and Iranians. There are indications that soon US is moving two more aircraft carrier battle groups to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf. This will spell a formidable strike force for Iran and Syria who are in defiance on issues of Lebanon and Nuclear weapons development.

Outbound from Singapore, the USS Carl Vinson is currently crossing the Indian Ocean headed towards Middle-East. This will be the first time since February 2004 that US will have three major carrier groups stationed on and around Middle East.

Each of these carrier groups carry nearly 85 aircrafts and is capable of deliver precision-guided munitions. In addition there are anti-submarine aircrafts, airborne-early-warning and rotary-wing aircrafts. Because in the air refueling capabilities these aircrafts can operate from a long distance. The carrier groups are independent and can operate indefinitely.

U.S. military air bases in Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia and the three carrier groups will create a formidable force far superior to any military in the region.

In addition more than 100,000 battle hardened force in Iraq will be another major force in case US has to use force against Iran and Syria.

It seems American are preparing to deal with Syria and Iran in the next several months. The first priority right now is diplomacy in association with the Europeans and the rest of the world. But the leadership in Teheran and Damascus are taking notice of the power build up in the region.

There are seeds of democracy in Lebanon, Iran and Syria. The whole regions is getting a quick lesson on the benefits of democracy.

Cheers.

[blaise]

We have a paradox here. The people of Iran are more strongly motivated to seek democracy than the Iraqis. However, Iran can put up much stiffer military resistance, so the road to democracy in Iran would be more perilous. Even those seeking democracy would resist an invasion by the US.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

You're right Blaise.

Fundemental Islam flourishes in Iran. I think the movement to democracy is going to be a dangerous one especially if they can't convince and gather support from the country's leading clerics, who have been calling the shots for centuries.

The plot is certainly thinkening nonetheless. Contrary to the wishes of the USA and Israel, Russia has signed an agreement with Iran to supply that country with fuel for its dormant nuclear power plant. The concern is what to do with the used nuclear rods. Russia countered by agreeing to secure the rods after their use. Russia said they will also supply technicians to get the American-designed plant operational.

Israel has already said that they will take out the plant if they deem it a threat. This is a similar scenario to when the Israelis took out the Osiraq plant in Iraq back in '81. Hopefully there won't be any Russian technicians on shift when that happens.

Cheers.

[blaise]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

You're right Blaise.

Fundemental Islam flourishes in Iran. I think the movement to democracy is going to be a dangerous one especially if they can't convince and gather support from the country's leading clerics, who have been calling the shots for centuries.

The plot is certainly thinkening nonetheless. Contrary to the wishes of the USA and Israel, Russia has signed an agreement with Iran to supply that country with fuel for its dormant nuclear power plant. The concern is what to done with the used nuclear rods. Russia countered by agreeing to secure the rods after their use. Russia said they will also supply technicians to get the American-designed plant operational.

Israel has already said that they will take out the plant if they deem it a threat. This is a similar scenario to when the Israelis took out the Osiraq plant in Iraq back in '81. Hopefully there won't be any Russian technicians on shift when that happens.

Cheers.

If only there were just one nuclear installation in Iran! They've got a number, some of them well hidden.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Keeping in mind that PTH's quote is from a satrical source, here is a post I made in this forum a couple of years ago:

M. said:

International Herald Tribune:

Occupational hazards

PARIS Last week I was on a platform with Gudrun Harrer, the foreign affairs editor of the Vienna daily Der Standard and a Middle East specialist. She had just returned from the region and was asked her expectations about the war that seems about to take place.

She said that until recently she had thought U.S. forces would probably overrun Iraq relatively easily but that she'd changed her mind when Saddam Hussein declared he would hold the tribal or clan leaders of the country responsible for defending their own regions and was arming them accordingly. This made a serious difference, she said, particularly as the Iraqi dictator would undoubtedly have any of the leaders who faltered killed, as an example to others.

To talk seriously about societies such as Iraq, it is essential to appreciate the family or clan structure that provides most of its members with their fundamental social attachment, and which is the basis of their political and military commitments.

Iraq is a manufactured state, which only came into existence in 1920, as a British mandate, although Iraqi (or Mesopotamian) society itself has existed since the beginnings of civilization...

- www.iht.com/articles/86775.html

***

From www.kurdishlibrary.org/Kurdish_Library/Aktuel/North_Irak/Index_Turkey_North_Iraq_Eng.htm

Ankara’s claims over rights in Mosul and Kirkuk in Nothern Iraq seems to have increased tension in the region.

These tense relations that have recently come to surface between Ankara and Arbil have received great attention in Turkish mass media.

***

From www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/iraq/iraq34.html

Sunni-Shia Relations in Iraq

Until the 1980s, the dominant view of contemporary political analysts held that Iraq was badly split along sectarian lines. The claim was that the Sunnis--although a minority--ran Iraq and subjected the majority Shias to systematic discrimination. According to the prevailing belief, the Shias would drive the Sunnis from power, if once afforded an opportunity to do so.

There was some basis to this notion. For many years Iraq was ruled by-and-large by Arab Sunnis who tended to come from a restricted area around Baghdad, Mosul, and Ar Rutbah--the socalled Golden Triangle...

***

Kuwait and Iraq: Historical Claims and Historical Disputes
by Richard Schofield

London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1991. 137 pp. £7.50

Orbis
Winter 1992
Reviewed by Daniel Pipes

Here's a book we could have used a year earlier! - a meticulous and detailed account of Iraq's claim to Kuwait. Actually, there are two claims: Baghdad either wants a change in boundaries to win greater access to the Persian Gulf, or it seeks to absorb Kuwait wholly into Iraq. While Iraqi governments of all descriptions have consistently forwarded the first claim during the past fifty years, the second has been seriously pursued on only three occasions (1938, 1961, 1990-91). In response to both, the Kuwaitis throughout the twentieth century have consistently said no.

As for the validity of Iraqi claims, Schofield dismisses the latter one out of hand. But he pays Baghdad more heed on the boundary dispute. Noting the historical vagaries that left Iraq with such an unsatisfactory shoreline-notably British efforts of 1913 to prevent the Ottoman Empire from establishing a railroad terminus; and the arbitrary British demarcation in 1951 of the border-the author implies that the Kuwaitis might show some flexibility. Noting that the border problem continues to fester, he hints at a deal: Baghdad agrees finally to demarcate the Iraq-Kuwait border according to the 1932 delimitation; in return, the Sabah dynasty permits Iraq access to the sea (through common water rights, a lease, or some other technicality). But, of course, he concedes, the August 1990 invasion renders Kuwaiti concessions unlikely for many years to come.

***

From www.netiran.com/Htdocs/Clippings/FPolitics/020107XXFP01.html

Iran-Iraq Relations! Only Baghdad Is Getting Concession

Every time the region was hit by a crisis particularly during the Persian Gulf war, the Iraqis sent friendly signals to Iran but after getting their needed concessions, they backed down on their pledges and promises. The most important issue governing the mutual relations over the past 13 years is the U.N. Security Council Resolution 598 but every time the Iraqis have restrained from implementing the provisions of the resolution. This coupled with the presence of opposition groups in each other's soil and Baghdad's refusal to abide by the provisions of the 1975 Algiers Accord have added to the thick file of mutual relations challenging both countries.

***

And from none other the "The CIA World Factbook":

Disputes - international:

despite restored diplomatic relations in 1990, lacks maritime boundary with Iran and disputes land boundary, navigation channels, and other issues from eight-year war; in November 1994, Iraq formally accepted the UN-demarcated border with Kuwait which had been spelled out in Security Council Resolutions 687 (1991), 773 (1993), and 883 (1993); this formally ends earlier claims to Kuwait and to Bubiyan and Warbah islands although the government continues periodic rhetorical challenges; dispute over water development plans by Turkey for the Tigris and Euphrates rivers

Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5%

Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

***

I stand by my original assertion that the war won't the worst of what is to come for this region. Though the war will have served to provoke the impending crisis. The United States with its typically ignorant "my-way-or-the highway" blundering in far corners of the world will be stirring up a hornet's nest.

Plus ça change...

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

The Abu Ghraib horror show will stand as testimony to US "democracy" in the region for much longer than any election. These are events that are indelibly stamped in the minds of Iraqis, especially young male Iraqis who lost family during the occupation, and Muslims throughout the region. In time some may forgive, but it's unlikely that any will forget. And the harvest will be bitter.

*

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba added—“detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence.” Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their “extremely sensitive nature.”<br>
The photographs—several of which were broadcast on CBS’s “60 Minutes 2” last week—show leering G.I.s taunting naked Iraqi prisoners who are forced to assume humiliating poses. Six suspects—Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick II, known as Chip, who was the senior enlisted man; Specialist Charles A. Graner; Sergeant Javal Davis; Specialist Megan Ambuhl; Specialist Sabrina Harman; and Private Jeremy Sivits—are now facing prosecution in Iraq, on charges that include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty toward prisoners, maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts. A seventh suspect, Private Lynndie England, was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, after becoming pregnant.

The photographs tell it all. In one, Private England, a cigarette dangling from her mouth, is giving a jaunty thumbs-up sign and pointing at the genitals of a young Iraqi, who is naked except for a sandbag over his head, as he masturbates. Three other hooded and naked Iraqi prisoners are shown, hands reflexively crossed over their genitals. A fifth prisoner has his hands at his sides. In another, England stands arm in arm with Specialist Graner; both are grinning and giving the thumbs-up behind a cluster of perhaps seven naked Iraqis, knees bent, piled clumsily on top of each other in a pyramid. There is another photograph of a cluster of naked prisoners, again piled in a pyramid. Near them stands Graner, smiling, his arms crossed; a woman soldier stands in front of him, bending over, and she, too, is smiling. Then, there is another cluster of hooded bodies, with a female soldier standing in front, taking photographs. Yet another photograph shows a kneeling, naked, unhooded male prisoner, head momentarily turned away from the camera, posed to make it appear that he is performing oral sex on another male prisoner, who is naked and hooded.

Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. “Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other—it’s all a form of torture,” Haykel said.

Two Iraqi faces that do appear in the photographs are those of dead men. There is the battered face of prisoner No. 153399, and the bloodied body of another prisoner, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. There is a photograph of an empty room, splattered with blood.

The 372nd’s abuse of prisoners seemed almost routine—a fact of Army life that the soldiers felt no need to hide.

- www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

*

The cost of "democracy" in the region (and most probably beyond) will be much higher than the spin doctors would have us believe. Thanks for the memories.

[Cranky]

M. said:

The Abu Ghraib horror show will stand as testimony to US "democracy" in the region for much longer than any election. These are events that are indelibly stamped in the minds of Iraqis, especially young male Iraqis who lost family during the occupation, and Muslims throughout the region. In time some may forgive, but it's unlikely that any will forget. And the harvest will be bitter.

*

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba added—“detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence.” Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their “extremely sensitive nature.”

The photographs—several of which were broadcast on CBS’s “60 Minutes 2” last week—show leering G.I.s taunting naked Iraqi prisoners who are forced to assume humiliating poses. Six suspects—Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick II, known as Chip, who was the senior enlisted man; Specialist Charles A. Graner; Sergeant Javal Davis; Specialist Megan Ambuhl; Specialist Sabrina Harman; and Private Jeremy Sivits—are now facing prosecution in Iraq, on charges that include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty toward prisoners, maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts. A seventh suspect, Private Lynndie England, was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, after becoming pregnant.

The photographs tell it all. In one, Private England, a cigarette dangling from her mouth, is giving a jaunty thumbs-up sign and pointing at the genitals of a young Iraqi, who is naked except for a sandbag over his head, as he masturbates. Three other hooded and naked Iraqi prisoners are shown, hands reflexively crossed over their genitals. A fifth prisoner has his hands at his sides. In another, England stands arm in arm with Specialist Graner; both are grinning and giving the thumbs-up behind a cluster of perhaps seven naked Iraqis, knees bent, piled clumsily on top of each other in a pyramid. There is another photograph of a cluster of naked prisoners, again piled in a pyramid. Near them stands Graner, smiling, his arms crossed; a woman soldier stands in front of him, bending over, and she, too, is smiling. Then, there is another cluster of hooded bodies, with a female soldier standing in front, taking photographs. Yet another photograph shows a kneeling, naked, unhooded male prisoner, head momentarily turned away from the camera, posed to make it appear that he is performing oral sex on another male prisoner, who is naked and hooded.

Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. “Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other—it’s all a form of torture,” Haykel said.

Two Iraqi faces that do appear in the photographs are those of dead men. There is the battered face of prisoner No. 153399, and the bloodied body of another prisoner, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. There is a photograph of an empty room, splattered with blood.

The 372nd’s abuse of prisoners seemed almost routine—a fact of Army life that the soldiers felt no need to hide.

- www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

*

The cost of "democracy" in the region (and most probably beyond) will be much higher than the spin doctors would have us believe. Thanks for the memories.

I am troubled by this....and there is a BUT somewhere.....

On one hand, there are people in there who are probably responsible for acts as evil as beheading HUMANS. For such barbarous acts, they deserve nothing less then death.

On the other hand, the sexually torture of prisoners is coming down to the level of the beheaders.

I believe that what has happened in Iraq is a runaway "translation" of extracting information by whatever means posssible. Somewhere in there there should be the word "civilized".

I believe that chemical torture or “truth serums” that yield results are acceptable and necessary in extremely barbaric cases. I also believe that there are too many people who are hypocritical with their views. They “cling” to their principles if it happens to others but if their loved one was buried alive in a coffin, THEY would want the police to take whatever means possible, INCLUDING torture to extract the information from a KNOWN perpetrator.

A short story....

My father was a resistance fighter in WW2. He and his man did things that they would never do under normal circumstances. He does not regret what they did, he regrets the barbaric circumstances made them do what they did.

I am sure that if people were honest with themselves, they could try to see the "why" and possibly mitigate the blame on the "who".

Again, I am not condoning what some American soldiers are doing, but I am not going to pronounce them as evil incarnate either. I have not had the experience of a ten year old girl walking up to me with a bomb strapped on her chest or a hand grenade in her hands. Nor have I had the experience of a loved one beheaded with a pen knife.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Mr. said:

I am troubled by this.

We should all be troubled by the subhuman behavior of representatives of "democracy". And so far we have only the "lite" version of the extent of the abuse.

Reporter alleges sodomy at Abu Ghraib

Baghdad, Iraq, Jul. 17 (UPI) -- American journalist Seymour Hersh has said there are videotapes of American soldiers sodomizing young Iraqi boys at Abu Ghraib prison.

The investigative journalist, one of the first to break the story of prisoner abuses, said the Bush administration is holding the tapes of these acts, Aljazeera.net reported Saturday.

"The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling, and the worst part is the soundtrack, of the boys shrieking. And this is your government at war," he said.

There was "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher," he said.

- washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040717-082858-3675r.htm

*

There is no honour in defending the inexcusable.

[Cranky]

M. said:

There is no honour in defending the inexcusable.

If YOU were faced with a situation where lives were going to be extinguished, would you NOT resort to whatever means possible to save them. Is a “his lawyer said he was not willing to talk” sufficient in the face of sub-human barbarity?

If a simple “you are going to jail” means nothing to one willing to commit barbarous acts (9-11), then is a ton of civility worth one ounces of sodium barbital (or equivalent)?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Mr. said:

If YOU were faced with a situation where lives were going to be extinguished, would you NOT resort to whatever means possible to save them. Is a “his lawyer said he was not willing to talk” sufficient in the face of sub-human barbarity?

If a simple “you are going to jail” means nothing to one willing to commit barbarous acts (9-11), then is a ton of civility worth one ounces of sodium barbital (or equivalent)?

Irrelevant to the point I was making.

Buggering young boys, humiliating, abusing and torturing men and women who are being held in captivity, most without conclusive proof of their involement in anti-American activities is hardly reacting to immediate threat of death. Those people were going nowhere. They were prisoners. As I said, there is no honour in defending the inexcusable.

Anyway, to reiterate my point. People in the region, from grandparents to schoolchildren can now be shown exactly what degenerate scum Americans are and why their country is worthy of the name "Great Satan" and should be punished whenver and wherever the opportunity presents itself.

No election will erase the photographs, videotapes, and firsthand accounts from the minds of the people. If you think that we are "troubled" by those events, try to imagine how they must seem to a Muslim. "You see, this is the extent they will go to so that they can have our oil."

Lord knows the Americans have created enough male orphans to feed terrorist cells for decades to come.

Good job of painting a bigger bulls-eye on yourself, USA.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

One thing that is extremely hard to do is to understand soldiers during times of war especially when we do it from being on other side of the television.

Though it's also different when those placed in offices of responsibility deliberately abuse their authority. The Abu Ghriad fiasco does not only hinder democratic processes, but also gives extreme Islamic fundementalists the fuel they need to denounce Christianity and then use it as a vehicle to promote their own faith.

BC posted many moons ago that he has concerns not only for the present, but ten years from now. Something like the Abu Ghraid incident will no doubt linger for fifty or sixty years.

That aside, if the US has concerns about the Iranian nuclear power plant, they're going to have to be careful as to how they handle it. Bush may have the bombs but he's losing international face expotentially by the day. Everyone and their dog is saying no to him now. Here's some other examples;

• China, the world's second-larges user of oil next to the US, has just inked a deal with Venesuela to commence off-shore oil drilling. This has irked the Bush administration to no end and have told each country such. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez could care less.
  
  
• Russia is now looking at the BRICS alliance. That's the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa alliance. Vladmir Putin has just signed a deal with China in which China will receive five times more oil than they are right now in exchange for securing his eastern border.
  
  
• If Brazil moves into an alliance with Russia look for Venezuela to follow. The two countries have many mutual interests.
  
  
• Bush can ill-afford to irk China. While he'll consider closing trade routes with China, he may want to consider that the USA receives 176,000 containers a day from that country. In fact, American department store chain Wal*Mart, conducts USD $18 billion in business a year. That's only one business. Also, you might think that the US economy should be broke by now. One of the reasons they aren't is because of China buying up American dollars. In exchange for this, Chinese products are permitted to flood the American market.
  
  
• The US has also started strategic talks with Ukraine. To counter this, Putin has started strategic negotiations with Germany and the Germans are listening.
  
  
• I guess American bases can't close fast enough in Germany. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder mades it a point to promote the EU over NATO. This has angered the Bush administration as well. However, there are a lot of people who want the Americans to stay. Specifically, there are many who were still around during the German occupation of WW II. They don't want to see Germany running things again. Also, there are many more from the former Soviet satellite countries who remember the Soviet occupation. They don't want to see that again either. In short, there are still many countries who depend on the US influence in Europe to balance things out.

As I was saying, there seem to be more countries standing up to Bush these days. Can you say Cold War II?

Cheers.

[blaise]

I've posted several times that the posiiton of the US as the world's hegemon is precarious. Its military power is not as overwhelming as it appears on the surface, as the difficulties it faces against a relatively minor Iraqi insurgency attest.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

One thing that is extremely hard to do is to understand soldiers during times of war especially when we do it from being on other side of the television.

Though it's also different when those placed in offices of responsibility deliberately abuse their authority. The Abu Ghriad fiasco does not only hinder democratic processes, but also gives extreme Islamic fundementalists the fuel they need to denounce Christianity and then use it as a vehicle to promote their own faith.

My point exactly.

BC posted many moons ago that he has concerns not only for the present, but ten years from now. Something like the Abu Ghraid incident will no doubt linger for fifty or sixty years.

Sadly something I, among others, could easily foresee due to the US's recent history of myopic foreign policy.

*

« Reply #8 on: Mar 21st, 2003, 9:29pm »

To build something takes time, to blow something up takes no time at all.

The aftermath is bound to be infinitely more difficult, and could quite possibly plunge the entire region into crisis. Old claims will be brought up. Scores will be settled. Ambitions will be tested. I shudder to imagine the possible magnitude of all this. Especially if the Infidel occupies a Muslim country on whatever pretext.

The restructuring of Iraq is best left to the UN. The Americans are a useful tool with their technology in the first stage of the process, but their Coca Cola foreign policy should be kept on this side of the Atlantic after that.

« Reply #16 on: Mar 22nd, 2003, 05:38am »

...It is ironic to see the Americans using the two things that they have more of than anyone else in the world to destroy one of their own creations. What remains to be seen is what the embryo they will seek to nourish with their money and weapons will look like as it grows. Recent past history has not been flattering in this regard.

« Reply #18 on: Mar 22nd, 2003, 1:48pm »

What really sucks is that the American government created and sustained Saddam in the first place.

The Americans are not the only ones who could remove Saddam. They are the ones who have chosen to do it in their own unpopular fashion. Though in a sense it's fitting that they clean up the mess they created in the first place. Of course, that they leave a greater mess behind them due to their shortsightedness won't be surprising, given their lack of understanding of the greater reality beyond their insular boundaries.

- habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&action=display&n=1&thread=12089

***

« Thread started on: Mar 23rd, 2003, 2:01pm »

The actual occupation, if and when it occurs, ought to be a morass to rival Vietnam. But hey, in the Nintendoland (courtesy Japan Inc) of North America, who thinks ahead that far realistically (and then decides on what course of action to take)?

The silver bullet is a myth.

America now is not what America was (despite the unconscious and sometimes legal absorption of past experience). The question is: "What are you doing to me now (and how will it affect *my* [insert appropriate region of the world] future)?"

It is fascinating, and frightening, to see the Oedipal saga of father and son Bush played out on the world stage. Beware ancient Greek playwrights .

***

« Reply #21 on: Mar 24th, 2003, 09:39am »

Actually the point I made was contained in my summary paragraph, and is as follows:

"I stand by my original assertion that the war won't be the worst of what is to come for this region. Though the war will have served to provoke the impending crisis. The United States with its typically ignorant "my-way-or-the highway" blundering in far corners of the world will be stirring up a hornet's nest."

As for the assertion that I have ignored the present or past: that is laughable. The articles themselves are a synopsis of past and present conditions in the area. I used them as a basis for making my prediction that the region will be far more unstable once Saddam is gone, thanks to the Bush Power Vacuum.

Yugoslavia - Tito = Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Muslim, Christian.

Iraq - Saddam = Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Baath party supporters, religious fundamentalists, clans, and possibly outsiders (Turks and Iranians).

Rebuilding will be a long, painful process.

« Reply #23 on: Mar 24th, 2003, 12:13pm »

It would be absurd of me to say that there is no possibility that American intervention could bring good. I just think that, given the numerous volatile factors and factions in the area, the probability is low. That plus the flair for diplomatic ham-fistedness American administration are prone to displaying abroad, makes for an explosive roostertail, IMO. The US's strengths are guns and money, not bringing people together.

Iraq is a balkanized state, cobbled out of disparate demographic elements by a colonial administration. Heterogenous states have historically been far more prone to internal instability than homogenous states. Sad but true.

- habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&thread=1048382316&action=display&start=15

That aside, if the US has concerns about the Iranian nuclear power plant, they're going to have to be careful as to how they handle it. Bush may have the bombs but he's losing international face expotentially by the day. Everyone and their dog is saying no to him now. Here's some other examples;

• China, the world's second-larges user of oil next to the US, has just inked a deal with Venesuela to commence off-shore oil drilling. This has irked the Bush administration to no end and have told each country such. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez could care less.
  
  
• Russia is now looking at the BRICS alliance. That's the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa alliance. Vladmir Putin has just signed a deal with China in which China will receive five times more oil than they are right now in exchange for securing his eastern border.
  
  
• If Brazil moves into an alliance with Russia look for Venezuela to follow. The two countries have many mutual interests.
  
  
• Bush can ill-afford to irk China. While he'll consider closing trade routes with China, he may want to consider that the USA receives 176,000 containers a day from that country. In fact, American department store chain Wal*Mart, conducts USD $18 billion in business a year. That's only one business. Also, you might think that the US economy should be broke by now. One of the reasons they aren't is because of China buying up American dollars. In exchange for this, Chinese products are permitted to flood the American market.
  
  
• The US has also started strategic talks with Ukraine. To counter this, Putin has started strategic negotiations with Germany and the Germans are listening.
  
  
• I guess American bases can't close fast enough in Germany. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder mades it a point to promote the EU over NATO. This has angered the Bush administration as well. However, there are a lot of people who want the Americans to stay. Specifically, there are many who were still around during the German occupation of WW II. They don't want to see Germany running things again. Also, there are many more from the former Soviet satellite countries who remember the Soviet occupation. They don't want to see that again either. In short, there are still many countries who depend on the US influence in Europe to balance things out.

As I was saying, there seem to be more countries standing up to Bush these days. Can you say Cold War II?

Cheers.

In a couple of decades Americans (and the rest of the world) will be buying well-made, inexpensive Chinese cars to go with their Japanese TVs, Korean DVD players, Taiwanese computers and Indian software.

What is somewhat alarming is the general population's ignorance regarding the disastrous state of the American economy, and the government's seeming reluctance to deal with that reality (I am sure Blaise would be willing to fill in the blanks).

Mention to an American that soon their economic power will be surpassed by the ECM and the Asian countries and you will get a blank expression in return. As you have noted, the latter two groups have taken notice of America's disease and are busy establishing new alliances to rpomote a stronger USA-free future for themselves.

America has so long been accustomed to being in the driver's seat that they cannot see or accept that their lease on the car is running out.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

March 27, 2005
THE SECURITY ADVISER

Is a State Sponsor of Terrorism Winning?
By RICHARD A. CLARKE

Imagine with me a nation's security leaders sitting around the conference table being briefed on the progress of things in Iraq. They celebrate the overwhelming victory of their favorites in the Iraqi elections. They are pleased with the effectiveness of their huge investment in building schools and hospitals in Shiite communities. They are delighted that the thousands of their security forces in Iraq are doing well, with few casualties. The nation? Iran.

Yes, Iran, the nation the Bush administration calls the greatest state sponsor of terrorism, is having some good days, largely at our expense. In the 1980's, Iran suffered an estimated one million casualties in a seven-year war against Iraq. From Iran's perspective, the purpose of the war was to place Iraq's majority Shiite religious faction in charge, to unseat Saddam Hussein, to protect the Shiite holy places and, perhaps, to get its hands on Iraq's vast oil deposits. The costly war ended in a draw, after the two sides exhausted themselves. Seventeen years later, Iran has now achieved three of those four war goals, thanks to 13,000 American casualties and scores of billions of American-taxpayer dollars.

Unlike American aid to Iraq, Iran's assistance is having little problem getting through. Estimated at many hundreds of millions of dollars per year, Iranian aid has a low overhead and is buying Tehran influence in Shiite communities. Intelligence sources report that Iran's secret service and Revolutionary Guards have heavily infiltrated Iraq, with perhaps as many as 5,000 personnel. That would make Iran the third-largest force in the coalition, but it does not, of course, participate in the coalition. Iran operates on its own agenda in Iraq. Iran's goal is to have a government in Baghdad under strong Iranian influence, not to create a mirror image of Tehran. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is widely agreed to be the most influential person in Iraq. He and many of the new leaders of Iraq spent many years living in Iran, with the help of the Tehran government.

European and American pressure on Syria has driven President Bashar al-Assad into the arms of Tehran. Although Syria's forces may withdraw from Lebanon, the Hezbollah terrorist force created by Iran will stay and has now gained Washington's acceptance as a legitimate Lebanese political party. Hezbollah is widely believed to have been responsible for the terrorist murders of more than 300 Americans in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, as well as many Israelis.

With oil costing more than $50 a barrel, the money keeps on flowing into Tehran's treasury. Western oil companies, including a Halliburton subsidiary, work with the Iranians, planning new oil pipelines to increase their output. The hope of American national security planners has been for democracy to flourish in Iran. Unfortunately, when a progressive parliament was elected, the ruling mullahs vetoed its actions and then stacked it with their supporters. There will soon be another election in Iran, but it is likely to be fixed by the mullahs.

Iran's nuclear strategists are also succeeding. President Bush has agreed to give Iran trade concessions to get it to abide by nuclear-nonproliferation agreements. Optimists think such concessions will halt the Iranian nuclear weapons program and buy agreement to a reliable inspection regime. Cynics suggest that Iran is playing for time to finish making bombs in hidden facilities. Either outcome, trade concessions or nuclear weapons, will strengthen Iran.

The president recently said that reports of the United States preparing to attack Iran were ''simply ridiculous.'' He then quickly added, ''All options are on the table.'' There are reports that Pentagon planners, reacting to the prospect of drawn-out negotiations, are developing strike packages to take out W.M.D. sites in Iran. Some planners say such strikes would cause the people to overthrow the mullahs. Actually, if we struck Iran, I think we would unite it, trigger a spasm of terrorist attacks against America and Israel and start another war for which we have no exit strategy. Thus, we need an honest national dialogue now on how much we feel threatened by Iran and what the least-bad approaches to mitigating that threat are.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[Cranky]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

One thing that is extremely hard to do is to understand soldiers during times of war especially when we do it from being on other side of the television.

Absolutely. We all have principals and a moral center but most just don't understand how easily war and terror buries them into mud of hate and barbarity.

Our society sends people to kill but expects those who kill to do so while wearing the wings of angels. War is ugly. War is dirty. War is not for those who reason but when reason has lost all hope.

I am not ready to crucify those who committed indecent acts unless I can judge the circumstances, the time and the reason.

I can not judge Dresden until I see the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

I can not judge the acts of Abu Ghraib prison until I see the beheadings.

[Cranky]

Blaise said:

I've posted several times that the posiiton of the US as the world's hegemon is precarious. Its military power is not as overwhelming as it appears on the surface, as the difficulties it faces against a relatively minor Iraqi insurgency attest.

Iraqi insurgents may maim and kill but they are not a defeat. Western minds make more of one dead soldier then a hundred successful mission. In the end, it is to the best interest of Iraq to deal with the insurgents.

The demise of Pax-America is a little premature perhaps even wishful thinking. They may have borrowed trillions but everyone else is holding the debt.

While I worry about a recession or a mini depression hitting North America (including CANADA), I do not see them becoming a second rate power, no matter how much wishful thinking their detractors like to pray for. They have an abundance of coal reserves (300 years!) and two giant moats protecting them. They also have the resiliency and the national pride to bounce back much more then our fragmented and self interest driven Canadian society.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

M. said:

Mention to an American that soon their economic power will be surpassed by the ECM

This might take a tad longer than most think. The Euro dollar is doing better than its US counterpart, granted, but in my opinion the EU has to start acting like a unified body before they can exert any heavy influence. As it is right now,

• France traditionally waffels to the loudest talker.
  
  
• Germany wants to run the whole show (again) and
  
  
• Britain retains their Sterling Pound.
  
  
• Moreover, while Britain decided support the US in Iraq, while France and Germany opted to protect their conflict of interests.
  
  
• Now France has apparently "made up" with the US (ah, the smell of waffels again), while Germany is talking with Russia about a new strategic alliance.
  Can you imagine Russia in the EU?
  
  

  America has so long been accustomed to being in the driver's seat that they cannot see or accept that their lease on the car is running out.

  
  Hmm ... I was in Germany on exercise with my unit during the reunification. When I got home I remember getting a phone call from my dad. He expressed concerns about the world only having one super power and he was right on the mark.
  
  What we're seeing develop nowadays are new alliances established with the intent of checking contemporary American expansionism. It might not be an accurate description, but it's the way I'm perceiving it. Maybe the the BRICS alliance is seeing it that way as well. BRICS being;
  
  
  • Brazil
    
    
  • Russia
    
    
  • India
    
    
  • China
    
    
  • South Africa
  
  
  If Venezuela commits to some sort of agreement as well it might be reasonable to suggest that a lot of small Middle-American countries may follow suit if only to show defiance.
  
  One question I had for Bush that I would have liked to have asked is why missile defence and why yesterday? Can it be to counter BRICS?
  
  In keeping with the thread PTH started, I submit that Bush may want to make some considerations before deploying anything his carrier groups have on Iran and/or Syria.
  
  Cheers.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

This might take a tad longer than most think. The Euro dollar is doing better than its US counterpart, granted, but in my opinion the EU has to start acting like a unified body before they can exert any heavy influence. As it is right now,

• France traditionally waffels to the loudest talker.
  
  
• Germany wants to run the whole show (again) and
  
  
• Britain retains their Sterling Pound.
  
  
• Moreover, while Britain decided support the US in Iraq, while France and Germany opted to protect their conflict of interests.
  
  
• Now France has apparently "made up" with the US (ah, the smell of waffels again), while Germany is talking with Russia about a new strategic alliance.
  Can you imagine Russia in the EU?

The EU is a model of democracy in action.

Gwynne Dyer on the USA as the self-appointed "god of democracy".

Granted, I don't see the US overnight turning into a skidrow bum, lying in an oil spill and babbling incoherently to the nations passing it by for handouts. More a sinking into its dotage, reaching the status of present-day Britain: still willing to protect Grenada from insurgency.

The two questions that give me pause for thought are:

1 - Will the US fade gracefully and with dignity, or will it go out with a show of force in a vain attempt to assert its "primacy" in world affaris? Hopefully we are now witnessing the bumbling attempts at the latter, and that will be the end of it.

2 - How will the general American population react once the reality and gravity of their economic slide hits them. Chanting "We're number 2" or "We're number 1B" just isn't the same. How will psyches and pocketbooks adapt? Who will be blamed? Will there be scapegoating? Will politics become even more conservative? Is fascism around the corner?

I can see Russia possibly joining the EU one day, once they've got their own internal affairs in order. It would be quite the feather in the caps of both sides. However, Russia, being as resource rich as it is, may just want to maintain its independence and broker between East (Asia) and West (Europe).

Hmm ... I was in Germany on exercise with my unit during the reunification. When I got home I remember getting a phone call from my dad. He expressed concerns about the world only having one super power and he was right on the mark.

What we're seeing develop nowadays are new alliances established with the intent of checking contemporary American expansionism. It might not be an accurate description, but it's the way I'm perceiving it. Maybe the the BRICS alliance is seeing it that way as well. BRICS being;

• Brazil
  
  
• Russia
  
  
• India
  
  
• China
  
  
• South Africa

If Venezuela commits to some sort of agreement as well it might be reasonable to suggest that a lot of small Middle-American countries may follow suit if only to show defiance.

One question I had for Bush that I would have liked to have asked is why missile defence and why yesterday? Can it be to counter BRICS?

The US has alarmed and worried most of the nations of the world with its unilateral adventurism and that is reflected in these alliances.

Also it's a bold statment that the rest of the planet sees international trade and commerce inevitably shifting away from being controlled by the USA.

In keeping with the thread PTH started, I submit that Bush may want to make some considerations before deploying anything his carrier groups have on Iran and/or Syria.

Cheers.

The New York Times article I posted at the bottom of page 1 of this thread IMO sums up the present situation quite lucidly. It also demonstrates (once again) that the US fumbles the ball internationally when it acts based on its self-interest.

Time for America to go home from its vacation abroad (the dollar doesn't quite buy what it used to in terms of goods or services) and fix the foundation of its house before the thing really starts to cave in.

Dyer again: Let's Attack Iran!

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Mr. said:

I am not ready to crucify those who committed indecent acts unless I can judge the circumstances, the time and the reason.

Go back and read the entire article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker that I provided a link to on the first page of this thread. Here is an excellent follow-up. That ought to get you started in putting the situation into perspective, as you say you require.

*

8 May 2004

Iconography

By Gwynne Dyer

The defining image of the Vietnam war was the naked little girl
running down the road crying, her clothes burned off by napalm. The
defining image of the Iraq war will probably be Private Lynndie England in
a corridor in Abu Ghraib prison, holding a leash attached to a naked Iraqi
man lying on the floor. It is the picture that best conveys the contempt
that ordinary American soldiers (and the government that sent them) feel
for Arabs.

Maybe I'm wrong. US Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld told the Senate
armed services committee last week that "the worst is yet to come. There
are a lot more pictures and many investigations underway....I looked at
them last night, and they're hard to believe....It's not a pretty picture."
But the symbolism of this one will be hard to beat.

Iraqis "must understand that what took place in that prison does
not represent the America that I know," said President Bush, and he was
right. Americans do not generally do this to other Americans. But it did
happen in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and things very like it have probably
happened in American prisons in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo, too.
Private England and her friends may have been enjoying it too much, but the
systematic humiliation of prisoners is probably policy.

- tinyurl.com/5j8lq

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Mr. said:

Absolutely. We all have principals and a moral center but most just don't understand how easily war and terror buries them into mud of hate and barbarity.

Our society sends people to kill but expects those who kill to do so while wearing the wings of angels. War is ugly. War is dirty. War is not for those who reason but when reason has lost all hope.

Your special knowledge and my special knowledge aside, here are some men who do understand, and who understand the need for strong measures to be taken.

*

April 1, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST

We Can't Remain Silent

By BOB HERBERT

At dinner on a rainy night in Manhattan this week, I listened to a retired admiral and a retired general speak about the pain they've personally felt over the torture and abuse scandal that has spread like a virus through some sectors of the military.

During the dinner and in follow-up interviews, Rear Adm. John Hutson, who is now president of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H., and Brig. Gen. James Cullen, a lawyer in private practice in New York, said they believed that both the war effort and the military itself have been seriously undermined by official policies that encouraged the abuse of prisoners.

Both men said they were unable to remain silent as institutions that they served loyally for decades, and which they continue to love without reservation, are being damaged by patterns of conduct that fly in the face of core values that most members of the military try mightily to uphold.

"At some point," said General Cullen, "I had to say: 'Wait a minute. We cannot go along with this.' "

The two retired officers have lent their support to an extraordinary lawsuit that seeks to hold Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ultimately accountable for policies that have given rise to torture and other forms of prisoner abuse. And last September they were among a group of eight retired admirals and generals who wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to create an independent 9/11-type commission to fully investigate the problem of prisoner abuse from the top to the bottom of the command structure.

Admiral Hutson, who served as the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000, said he felt sick the first time he saw the photos of soldiers abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. "I felt like somebody in my family had died," he said.

Even before that, he had been concerned by the Bush administration's decision to deny the protections of the Geneva Conventions to some detainees, and by the way prisoners at Guantánamo Bay were being processed and treated. He said that when the scandal at Abu Ghraib broke, "I knew in my soul that it was going to be bigger than that, that we had just seen the tip of the iceberg and that it was going to get worse and worse and worse."

The letter to President Bush emphasized the wide scope of the problem, noting that there were "dozens of well-documented allegations of torture, abuse and otherwise questionable detention practices" involving prisoners in U.S. custody. It said:

"These reports have implicated both U.S. military and intelligence agencies, ranging from junior enlisted members to senior command officials, as well as civilian contractors. ... No fewer than a hundred criminal, military and administrative inquiries have been launched into apparently improper or unlawful U.S. practices related to detention and interrogation. Given the range of individuals and locations involved in these reports, it is simply no longer possible to view these allegations as a few instances of an isolated problem."

Admiral Hutson and General Cullen have worked closely with a New York-based group, Human Rights First, which, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, filed the lawsuit against Mr. Rumsfeld. A report released this week by Human Rights First said that the number of detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan has grown to more than 11,000, and that the level of secrecy surrounding American detention operations has intensified.

Burgeoning detainee populations and increased secrecy are primary ingredients for more, not less, prisoner abuse.

One of the many concerns expressed by Admiral Hutson and General Cullen was the effect of the torture and abuse scandal on members of the military who have had nothing to do with it. "I think it does stain the honor of people who didn't participate in it at all," said Admiral Hutson. "People in the military who find that kind of behavior abhorrent are painted with the same broad brush."

General Cullen, who has served as chief judge of the Army's Court of Criminal Appeals, spoke in terms of grief. "You feel sorrow," he said, "because you know there are so many servicemen and women out there who want to do the right thing, who are doing tough jobs every day. And to see these events blacken their names and call into question their whole mission just makes me sad. Very, very sad."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

*

March 24, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST

George W. to George W.

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Of all the stories about the abuse of prisoners of war by American soldiers and C.I.A. agents, surely none was more troubling and important than the March 16 report by my Times colleagues Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt that at least 26 prisoners have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 - in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide.

You have to stop and think about this: We killed 26 of our prisoners of war. In 18 cases, people have been recommended for prosecution or action by their supervising agencies, and eight other cases are still under investigation. That is simply appalling. Only one of the deaths occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, reported Jehl and Schmitt - "showing how broadly the most violent abuses extended beyond those prison walls and contradicting early impressions that the wrongdoing was confined to a handful of members of the military police on the prison's night shift."

Yes, I know war is hell and ugliness abounds in every corner. I also understand that in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we are up against a vicious enemy, which, if it had the power, would do great harm to our country. You do not deal with such people with kid gloves. But killing prisoners of war, presumably in the act of torture, is an inexcusable outrage. The fact that Congress has just shrugged this off, and no senior official or officer has been fired, is a travesty. This administration is for "ownership" of everything except responsibility.

President Bush just appointed Karen Hughes, his former media adviser, to head up yet another U.S. campaign to improve America's image in the Arab world. I have a suggestion: Just find out who were the cabinet, C.I.A. and military officers on whose watch these 26 homicides occurred and fire them. That will do more to improve America's image in the Arab-Muslim world than any ad campaign, which will be useless if this sort of prisoner abuse is shrugged off. Republicans in Congress went into overdrive to protect the sanctity of Terri Schiavo's life. But they were mute when it came to the sanctity of life for prisoners in our custody. Such hypocrisy is not going to win any P.R. battles.

By coincidence, while following this prisoner abuse story, I've been reading "Washington's Crossing," the outstanding book by the Brandeis historian David Hackett Fischer about how George Washington and his troops rescued the American Revolution after British forces and German Hessian mercenaries had routed them in the early battles around New Jersey.

What is particularly moving is one of Mr. Fischer's concluding sections, "An American Way of War," in which he contrasts how Washington dealt with prisoners of war with how the British and Hessian forces did: "According to the 'the laws' of European war, quarter was the privilege of being allowed to surrender and to become a prisoner. By custom and tradition, soldiers in Europe believed that they had a right to extend quarter or deny it. ... In these 'laws of war,' no captive had an inalienable right to be taken prisoner, or even to life itself."

American attitudes were very different. "With some exceptions, American leaders believed that quarter should be extended to all combatants as a matter of right. ... Americans were outraged when quarter was denied to their soldiers." In one egregious incident, at the battle at Drake's Farm, British troops murdered all seven of Washington's soldiers who had surrendered, crushing their brains with muskets.

"The Americans recovered the mutilated corpses and were shocked," wrote Mr. Fischer. The British commander simply denied responsibility. "The words of the British commander, as much as the acts of his men," wrote Mr. Fischer, "reinforced the American resolve to run their own war in a different spirit. ... Washington ordered that Hessian captives would be treated as human beings with the same rights of humanity for which Americans were striving. The Hessians ... were amazed to be treated with decency and even kindness. At first they could not understand it." The same policy was extended to British prisoners.

In concluding his book, Mr. Fischer wrote lines that President Bush would do well to ponder: George Washington and the American soldiers and civilians fighting alongside him in the New Jersey campaign not only reversed the momentum of a bitter war, but they did so by choosing "a policy of humanity that aligned the conduct of the war with the values of the Revolution. They set a high example, and we have much to learn from them."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Leave Iraq the way Iraq left Kuwait. Leave through Iran treating them the way they treated our embassy hostages.

It works for me!.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Leave Iraq the way Iraq left Kuwait. Leave through Iran treating them the way they treated our embassy hostages.

It works for me!.

George Washington and the American soldiers and civilians fighting alongside him in the New Jersey campaign not only reversed the momentum of a bitter war, but they did so by choosing "a policy of humanity that aligned the conduct of the war with the values of the Revolution. They set a high example, and we have much to learn from them."

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

M. said:

George Washington and the American soldiers and civilians fighting alongside him in the New Jersey campaign not only reversed the momentum of a bitter war, but they did so by choosing "a policy of humanity that aligned the conduct of the war with the values of the Revolution. They set a high example, and we have much to learn from them."

I agree completely that it is better to be magnanamous in victory and turn the other cheek, but we are fighting a foe that ambushes us and runs, hides among civilians and kills innocent bystanders. In order to stop their carnage, it may be necessary to take out some bystanders too. Collateral damage. We don't want to harm Sunni civilians, but if they are in the way of our getting to the insurgents, then it's better for them to die than stronghold for our noble soldiers tp continue getting picked off. If wiping out a Sunni stronghold brings about a quicker end to the war, do it.
Nobody wanted to kill Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it probably saved a lot of lives and ended the war sooner.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

I agree completely that it is better to be magnanamous in victory and turn the other cheek, but we are fighting a foe that ambushes us and runs, hides among civilians and kills innocent bystanders. In order to stop their carnage, it may be necessary to take out some bystanders too. Collateral damage. We don't want to harm Sunni civilians, but if they are in the way of our getting to the insurgents, then it's better for them to die than stronghold for our noble soldiers tp continue getting picked off. If wiping out a Sunni stronghold brings about a quicker end to the war, do it.
Nobody wanted to kill Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it probably saved a lot of lives and ended the war sooner.

9/11 was used as a red herring for creating a foe and invading their country.

The Iraq "war" is generally being discredited as a misadventure, with the explicit and implicit aid of government officials and agencies. The American people were sold a bill of rotten goods. It's time to withdraw, cut losses in all quarters, and hope that the mess left behind isn't too devastating to either Iraq, the Middle East, or the USA..

George W Bush's blind, howling blood-lust, crusader reaction to the slap in the face his daddy got from the former American welfare recipient Saddam has smeared America's good name internationally and is on the verge of plunging his country into economic tragedy.

Hard not to imagine Osama bin-Laden's Saperlipopette-eating grin as he points to a story on the slide of the American dollar and says, "To think I did that with a few dozen men. Imagine if we were as powerful as they say we are. Ah, Bush, Bush, my most excellent friend."

This is not a clear-thinking man. This is a man who credits voices for directing him what to do. Nations with ears to hear and eyes to see are staying at arm's [sic] length. And I'm talking about Bush here, not bin-Laden.

The whispers passing back and forth between these other countries are being transformed into action in the form of previously unimagined alliances and co-operative ventures. In this sense the American madness has been good for the world as a whole.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

THE COMING WARS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
What the Pentagon can now do in secret.
Issue of 2005-01-24 and 31
Posted 2005-01-17

...“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”<br>
Bush and Cheney may have set the policy, but it is Rumsfeld who has directed its implementation and has absorbed much of the public criticism when things went wrong—whether it was prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib or lack of sufficient armor plating for G.I.s’ vehicles in Iraq. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have called for Rumsfeld’s dismissal, and he is not widely admired inside the military. Nonetheless, his reappointment as Defense Secretary was never in doubt.

Rumsfeld will become even more important during the second term. In interviews with past and present intelligence and military officials, I was told that the agenda had been determined before the Presidential election, and much of it would be Rumsfeld’s responsibility. The war on terrorism would be expanded, and effectively placed under the Pentagon’s control. The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.

- newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

M. said:

9/11 was used as a red herring for creating a foe and invading their country.

The Iraq "war" is generally being discredited as a misadventure, with the explicit and implicit aid of government officials and agencies. The American people were sold a bill of rotten goods. It's time to withdraw, cut losses in all quarters, and hope that the mess left behind isn't too devastating to either Iraq, the Middle East, or the USA..

George W Bush's blind, howling blood-lust, crusader reaction to the slap in the face his daddy got from the former American welfare recipient Saddam has smeared America's good name internationally and is on the verge of plunging his country into economic tragedy.

Hard not to imagine Osama bin-Laden's Saperlipopette-eating grin as he points to a story on the slide of the American dollar and says, "To think I did that with a few dozen men. Imagine if we were as powerful as they say we are. Ah, Bush, Bush, my most excellent friend."

This is not a clear-thinking man. This is a man who credits voices for directing him what to do. Nations with ears to hear and eyes to see are staying at arm's [sic] length. And I'm talking about Bush here, not bin-Laden.

The whispers passing back and forth between these other countries are being transformed into action in the form of previously unimagined alliances and co-operative ventures. In this sense the American madness has been good for the world as a whole.

There are areas where we are in agreement and this isn't one of them. I think we will forever disagree on Americas need for security and self assigned right to do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to ensure our security. Retreating is not an option. Even if I found reason to believe that we were wrong to have gone there in the first place, retreat is not an option.
I have much more compassion for the 9/11 victims than for the insurgents. I regret the injury and death caused to innocents by the insurgents, but capitulation is not an option. If MILLIONS of people must be eliminated in order to preserve our security, then millions will die, but we won't compromise our safety by placing ourselves in their hands.
I'm not trying to encite you but rather stating my strong conviction that the safety of myself and family is of paramount importance to me. perhaps in Canada it is possible to feel secure in the knowledge that there is no imminent threat, but I fear that that is the Neville Chamberlain approach to buying time before facing responsibility. Spain, Russia and Indonesia have learned that if we don't eliminate the threat we are not secure.

[blaise]

I can foresee only China overtaking the US in the next 50 years. The US can hold on to its lead over the rest of the world (and China as well) if it wins the race to develop alternative energy sources that are suitable for transportation. However, to do so it will have to detox from its addiction to petroleum. (Hear that, you Crawford, Texas resident moron?)

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Blaise said:

I can foresee only China overtaking the US in the next 50 years. The US can hold on to its lead over the rest of the world (and China as well) if it wins the race to develop alternative energy sources that are suitable for transportation. However, to do so it will have to detox from its addiction to petroleum. (Hear that, you Crawford, Texas resident moron?)

Petroleum is much less of a problem for the US than for Europe or Japan.
Gasoline is much more expensive in Europe than in the US. The US produces a portion of it's needs, unlike countries that are totally dependent on imports.
The US with it's guzzler V8's and SUV's has more room to painlessly economize and reduce consumption than countries that are already frugal in consumption.
If the future holds dramatic energy problems for the world, they will affect other countries more than it will impact the US or Canada.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Your points are well taken, HFLA. After 9/11 measures had to be taken to ensure the safety, and integrity, of the American way of life. No one can blame Bush for going on the offensive and he did the right thing.

However, I honestly believe that Bush has lost his focus. And, I have to admit that I'm one of those people that feel he's using the 9/11 scenario to substantiate everything he's doing right now.

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Petroleum is much less of a problem for the US than for Europe or Japan.

Yes it is. But, Bush seems to be trying his best to putting dibbs on much of the world's oil supply. At least that's what some of the OPEC countries are thinking. Wonder if gas prices would go down if he were to change his policy on this.

Don't take me the wrong way HFLA, but this seems to be the perception out there. Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, was recently quoted as saying,

"The United States government would very much like to keep all our oil for itself," Chavez said. But our oil reserve does not belong to Mr. Bush. The oil belongs to the Venezuelan people."

Honestly, Chavez is only saying what some other countries are thinking. Moreover, in the same article he is quoted as saying this;

"We are just waiting for the United States to announce next that Venezuela has weapons of mass destruction,"

All this rhetoric started when Venezuela agreed to supply China with oil (possibly more than it supplies the USA) and Bush can't handle it.

Gasoline is much more expensive in Europe than in the US. The US produces a portion of it's needs, unlike countries that are totally dependent on imports.

Yes, it has always been that way. When I lived in Germany lead-free (blei frei) gas was already over DM 1/litre and that was back in '86. I couldn't figure out how Europeans could afford gas when everyone drove 130 km (plus) on the autobahns.

The US with it's guzzler V8's and SUV's has more room to painlessly economize and reduce consumption than countries that are already frugal in consumption.

Easier said than done. Try telling consumers that they can no longer drive the vehicles of their choice and the first thing a North American will do (after telling the powers to be to pound salt) is cite their rights.

If the future holds dramatic energy problems for the world, they will affect other countries more than it will impact the US or Canada.

I know where you're coming from, HFLA. Like you said already, the USA provides a percentage of it's own oil needs. But, as I was saying before, I honestly believe that if Bush doesn't change is policy and, more importantly, if the international perception fails to change, North America and Europe will continue to see gas prices rise.

Coming full circle on you, HFLA, I feel there's nothing wrong with protecting one's own country. Heck, Canadians will now have to show passports at the borders as of next year. But, somewhere along the line, I honestly believe that Bush has lost his focus.

Just my opinions buds.

Cheers.