OT Way to go Spain; that'll teach 'em. . .

[Scott Ferrin]

"MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spain's 1,400 troops in Iraq will be withdrawn
"in the shortest possible time," the country's new prime minister said
Sunday.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said his defense minister-designate, Jose
Bono, was ordered to make the arrangements as soon as he had been
sworn into office with the rest of the new Cabinet on Sunday."

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spain's 1,400 troops in Iraq will be withdrawn
> "in the shortest possible time," the country's new prime minister said
> Sunday.
>
> Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said his defense minister-designate, Jose
> Bono, was ordered to make the arrangements as soon as he had been
> sworn into office with the rest of the new Cabinet on Sunday."
>
>

Those Spanish cowards are in some fierce competition with the Frech cowards.
Not wanting to be outdone, I wonder what France's next move is going to be?
Make Osama an honorary citizen of Paris (like they did with Mumia Abu
Jamal)? That would leave Spain with no choice but to appoint Osama as their
president.

Should be interesting.

[Tuollaf43]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> "MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spain's 1,400 troops in Iraq will be withdrawn
> "in the shortest possible time," the country's new prime minister said
> Sunday.
>
> Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said his defense minister-designate, Jose
> Bono, was ordered to make the arrangements as soon as he had been
> sworn into office with the rest of the new Cabinet on Sunday."

It wont teach 'em. And more to the point the Spainards dotn seem to be
interested in teaching 'em. Why should they?

[John Cook]

Quick question, what exactly are we teaching them?.

Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:08:15 +1000, John Cook >
wrote:

>
>Quick question, what exactly are we teaching them?.
>
>Cheers
>
>John Cook


Do you watch the news much? Spain gets a huge terrorist incident
right before an election so they vote in a terrorist sympithizer (may
as well be) and his first order of business is to have any Spanish
troops in Iraq leave so fast all you see is the cloud of dust. I was
being sracrastic when I said "that'll teach 'em". Incidents like this
only encourage the terrorists. Next time they want something in
Spain they'll just blow something up to make sure they get it. And I
thought the French were bad.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:33:55 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:

>
>
>"MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spain's 1,400 troops in Iraq will be withdrawn
>"in the shortest possible time," the country's new prime minister said
>Sunday.
>
>Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said his defense minister-designate, Jose
>Bono, was ordered to make the arrangements as soon as he had been
>sworn into office with the rest of the new Cabinet on Sunday."
>
Run, cowards, run.

Al Minyard

[Roman J. Rohleder]

Alan Minyard > schrieb:

>Run, cowards, run.

Please, do. As fast as you can.

>Al Minyard

Gruss, Roman
--

[Jukka O. Kauppinen]

> Those Spanish cowards are in some fierce competition with the Frech cowards.

In what way Spanish are cowards?

90 % of the Spanish population is against Spanish forces in Iraq.
Zapatero's party promised to bring their soldiers back already way
before the election, if they win.

Should be noted that both Spain and France are actively participating at
Afganistan, which is UN operation. Iraq is unlawful invasion, with no
United Nations backing. So it was an error in first place to even send
forces to Iraq, which they are now correcting.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jukka O. Kauppinen" > wrote in
message ...
>
> Iraq is unlawful invasion, with no
> United Nations backing. So it was an error in first place to even send
> forces to Iraq, which they are now correcting.
>

The resumption of hostilities in Iraq was sanctioned under U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1441.

[John Cook]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:08:15 +1000, John Cook >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Quick question, what exactly are we teaching them?.
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >John Cook
>
>
> Do you watch the news much? Spain gets a huge terrorist incident
> right before an election so they vote in a terrorist sympithizer (may
> as well be) and his first order of business is to have any Spanish
> troops in Iraq leave so fast all you see is the cloud of dust. I was
> being sracrastic when I said "that'll teach 'em". Incidents like this
> only encourage the terrorists. Next time they want something in
> Spain they'll just blow something up to make sure they get it. And I
> thought the French were bad.

i know you were being sarcastic, I was just wondering what we are
teaching Iraqi's.

The Iraqi situation is a **** up, the whole premise of the invasion
was based on lies or at best stage managed intellegence, then despite
warnings that without international support it would quickly turn into
a **** fight, The US decided to 'save' the Iraqi's from Saddam (I
can't find any good reference to Saddams links with Al Queda).

Ask yourself a couple of questions,
Why are we in Iraq?.
Why don't the people in Iraq want us there?.

Then look at what other countries fit into the reasons why we went to
war, China, North korea, virtually the whole middle east, Russia.

Its beginning to look like the 'war on terrorism' is just an excuse
for some really terrible political decisions.

How do you think the US has managed to turn the overwhelming
international support and outrage of the Sept 11th attack into a
minority of 'hard core' countries that now find it difficult to
disengage from the whole sorry mess.

People are calling the French cowards (and I'm not a great fan of the
french) but all they did was say that it was a bad idea to invade on
the flaky intellegence available and they wouldn't support such an
action (now they have been proved correct), the UN said wait till the
weapons inspectors have finished their work because they were
exausting all possible avenues, The US decided to give Saddam an
ultimatum, produce the WMD in 10 days or else. (Well the US has had a
year wheres the WMD?, 'oops we made a mistake' seems a little thin.)

Preemptive attacks are a pretty stupid idea especially when the
reasons for the attack evaporate, and It certainly hasn't helped the
US now, In fact the whole Iraq fiasco has helped the extremist anti
western elements hugely, uniting diverse factions against western
interests, splitting western allies, and destroying US international
credability especially its Integellence agencies.

Now ask yourself what positives have been achieved?.

The Iraqi's are now being 'helped' by the US, they are spending the
Iraqi Oil money with mainly American companies to rebuild the war torn
country.
Thats rather like having a mugger break into your house, and you pay
him to fix the damage he's done..


All in All the war on terrorism seems to be acheiving the extremists
aims more that western interests, its not a question of cowardice.
Whats required is common sense and sensible foreign policys to stop a
crusader type new holy war breaking out either through stupidity or
the perception that is a christian v muslim thing..


Just My 2 pennys worth

Cheers

[Krztalizer]

>
>Then look at what other countries fit into the reasons why we went to
>war, China, North korea, virtually the whole middle east, Russia.
>
>Its beginning to look like the 'war on terrorism' is just an excuse
>for some really terrible political decisions.

BEGINNING???

[miso]

You, sir, are not staying the course. ;-)

BTW, I believe the PO is signed for the USCG (or whatever we call the
USCG nowadays) CASA235s, so the bribe money has been paid and thus the
Spanish troops can go home. They have those home grown bad guys to
take care of, though as we know, it's more police action than military
action.

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message >...
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > "MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spain's 1,400 troops in Iraq will be withdrawn
> > "in the shortest possible time," the country's new prime minister said
> > Sunday.
>
> Well, how could a Spanish government ask its soldiers to
> risk their lives to implement a policy it does not believe in?
> That would be an utterly impossible line to take. Zapatero
> promised his voters that he would call the Spanish troops
> back from Iraq over a year ago. He is keeping his promise --
> such things happen, even in politics.
>
> Dubyah's favourite whine is that everyone who is not 100%
> behind him is giving in to terrorism. Considering the chaos
> he has caused so far, and the lack of indication that this has
> reduced the threat of terrorism (the Spanish have every reason
> to suspect the contrary), this line is getting a little stale. Maybe
> Zapatero thinks Spain knows better ways to fight terrorism.
> If so he may very well be right; they at least the advantage of
> experience.
>
> It is a bad thing for Iraq, but I suspect that in the long run it
> makes very little difference. These 1,400 troops matter far
> less than the continuing lack of a credible policy to give Iraq
> a stable and democratic government. George W. may vow to
> use "decisive force", but US soldiers would have to be able
> to walk on water to be able to decide this one in his favour.
>
> It is about time Bush and Blair got a grip on reality. It may be
> nice to use the words "freedom" and "democracy" a lot, but
> the man in the street in Fallujah -- thoroughly used to the tricks
> of propaganda -- probably hears "a pro-American government
> that will sell its oil cheap, condone the Israeli treatment of the
> Palestinians, and replace Islam with Coca-Cola and debased
> television programmes." And, sadly enough, that perception may
> be closer to the truth than Dubyah's high-flying rethoric.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

"Jukka O. Kauppinen" wrote:
>

I disgree that the Spanish troops might be cowards, like the French.

But ...

> Should be noted that both Spain and France are actively participating at
> Afganistan, which is UN operation. Iraq is unlawful invasion, with no
> United Nations backing.

Unlawful invasion my ass. Read UN resolution 1441
(and the dozen or so earlier ones, almost all of
which charge the members with forcing Iraq to comply
with the resolutions). A few members accepted their
role (e.g. - US, UK, others) - while others were too
busy trying to cover their own violations of the sanctions
- and maintaining some very lucrative deals with Saddam.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>

> Dubyah's favourite whine is that everyone who is not 100%
> behind him is giving in to terrorism.

What would you call it, instead?

> Maybe Zapatero thinks Spain knows better ways to fight terrorism.

Send them birthday cards?
Increase their terrorism threat level from "run" to "hide"?

Without leaders able to make essential, but possibly
unpopular decisions, a citizenry soon learns it can vote
troublesome options into oblivion, and vote itself a "golden
age" of peaceful indulgence... for a short time. Terrorists
watch with glee as these sheep grow to accept extortion as a
good way to ensure a few more days of the grand times - until
collapse.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

John Cook wrote:
>

> Ask yourself a couple of questions,
> Why are we in Iraq?.

Because a reasonably-secular and democratic Iraq would
quickly be followed by a democratic (rather than theocratic)
Iran - and both have the resources to be an economic miracle
- like S. Korea - leading to stability and a more peaceful
Middle East.

> Why don't the people in Iraq want us there?.

If that was was true, recent polls wouldn't show that
the average Iraqi (70% or so) doesn't want us to abandon
them to the thugs and Jihadis until they are capable of
dealing with these criminals on their own...

[Tuollaf43]

Dweezil Dwarftosser > wrote in message >...
> John Cook wrote:
> >
>
> > Ask yourself a couple of questions,
> > Why are we in Iraq?.
>
> Because a reasonably-secular and democratic Iraq would

Which is now a pipe-dream.

> quickly be followed by a democratic (rather than theocratic)
> Iran -

Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.

And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.

> and both have the resources to be an economic miracle
> - like S. Korea - leading to stability and a more peaceful
> Middle East.

Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.

>
> > Why don't the people in Iraq want us there?.
>
> If that was was true, recent polls

Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
credible.

> wouldn't show that
> the average Iraqi (70% or so) doesn't want us to abandon
> them to the thugs and Jihadis

Which does not translate to that the 70% of the Iraqi people wanted
them there in the first place.

> until they are capable of
> dealing with these criminals on their own...

[Jarg]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
om...
>
>
> Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
> or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
> persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.

Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections. Which isn't to say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does, but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.

>
> And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
> political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.
>

Hard to say, but I doubt this is true. The Iranian government isn't just
reacting to US policy. It has its own agenda that clashes sharply with the
interests of the civilized world.

>
> Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
> wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
> in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
> been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.
>

I thought you said they have a democracy! The Shah was by far the most
progressive government Iran has had, which isn't saying much. The economy
of Iran improved dramatically under the Shah and collapsed when he was
overthrown. Part of that was Saddams doing, but mostly it is the result of
foolish governement political and economic policies.

> Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
> credible.

I believe the polls were taken by independent news organizations.

Jarg

[Eunometic]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message >...
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > "MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spain's 1,400 troops in Iraq will be withdrawn
> > "in the shortest possible time," the country's new prime minister said
> > Sunday.
>
> Well, how could a Spanish government ask its soldiers to
> risk their lives to implement a policy it does not believe in?
> That would be an utterly impossible line to take. Zapatero
> promised his voters that he would call the Spanish troops
> back from Iraq over a year ago. He is keeping his promise --
> such things happen, even in politics.


There is another aspect to this. The outgoing Government had tried to
blame the Madrid train bombing on ETA or other Basque seperatists.
When the truth came out many Spaniards must have lost complete
confidence in the Government and voted them out. Really a government
that lies that much has to go in any democracy. This sort of
irresponsibillity could have re-ignited the Basque seperatist issues.

Not only had there been a consistent pattern of intelligence plants:
Niger uranium document forgeries, aluminium tubes supposedly for
uranium isotope seperation that turn out to be nothing of the sort,
faked or hyped WMD finds, bio war labs that are trailers for inflating
weather balloons, Surface to surface missiles that had a 110km
(exceding the 100km limit) range without a warhead used as a pretext
for invasion, the smearing of Hans Blix, the earlier faked baby
incubator theft but now the Government was essentialy lying on top of
letting itself be conned.

It is not wonder that the public has lost confidence in the Government
and the press.

If there is a general middle eastern up rising, equivalent to dozens
of Fallujiya, current US forces will not cope. As Bismark said "It's
not worth the blood of one Pommeranian Grenadier"

Personally I wouldn't want to be part of it at all.

The British in Northern Ireland commited 1/10th as many stupidities as
the US has managed and see where that led.

[Tuollaf43]

"Jarg" > wrote in message >...
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> >
> > Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
> > or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
> > persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.
>
> Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
> decisions including eligible candidates in elections.

There are always limits to a pure democracy - for instance the
judiciary or a constitutional head of state in most west minister type
democracies. Not that I am arguing that the current state in the
evolution of the Iranian democratic state is examplary, but it is
pretty good progress overall compared to the American supported ideal
- the Shah Monarchy.

I never said that Iran was a democracy in the image of the US - but it
is a functioning and vibrant democracy none the less, and more
importantly evolving towards a better state, with all the ups and
downs in its journey. Before comparing it to Swiss, UK or US model
please remember that they just had a bloody revolution and a bloodier
war and not few hundred years of fairly peaceful and economically
productive years in which to evolve.

And if you think that it is way too authoritarian then just look at
the manner in which in which a single terrorist attack has undermined
the civil liberties in the US and how that nation has taken the first
tentative steps towards the establishment of a police state. Iran has
had to deal with worse - including now the damocles sword of threat of
invasion for future possible transgressions.

> Which isn't to say
> the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does, but
> only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
> exposed to indoctrination.

Exactly the same could be said, for instance, of the US. Most of its
citizens are poorly educated about Iraq or Iran and are constantly
exposed to indoctrination by the media, even the reviled US 'liberal'
media would be far right of center in most countries.

>
> >
> > And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
> > political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.
> >
>
> Hard to say, but I doubt this is true.

Standing external threat, the axis of evil rhetoric, threats and talk
of invasions, expressed desire to overthrow the current regime make
the those in control justifiably paranoid and weakens the hands of the
reformers. This is obvious.

> The Iranian government isn't just
> reacting to US policy.

Ofcourse not. That would ascribe to the US for more influence than it
enjoys; but it is certainly a major (or THE major) factor in the
Iranian calculations.

> It has its own agenda that clashes sharply with the
> interests

Good for them. Which country does not have its own agenda? I dont see
any particular reason that Iran should apologitic about a 'Iran first'
agenda. And another way to put it would be that Western interests
clash sharply with persian interests. As far as I know Iran is not
publicly planning and equipping for global domination or a New Iranian
Century. No Iranian carrier battle groups conduct freedom of
navigation excercises off Boston Harbour, occasionally shooting down
airliners. There is no funding for overthrowing the Bush regime and
bringing 'true' democracy to America.

> of the civilized world.

This is unadulterated hubris.

>
> >
> > Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
> > wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
> > in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
> > been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.
> >
>
> I thought you said they have a democracy! The Shah was by far the most
> progressive government Iran has had, which isn't saying much.

Wow! the US installed Shah monarchy with its savak terror was an
improvement over the Mossadegh government?

And look at the state of democracy in Iran, which broke its US
shackles with those still under western influence - KSA et al.

> The economy
> of Iran improved dramatically under the Shah and collapsed when he was
> overthrown.

A rise and decline in which the US had a prominient part to play.

> Part of that was Saddams doing, but mostly it is the result of
> foolish governement political and economic policies.

Politically it was a time for terror and counter-terror which any way
you look at it sucks. But what exactly were the foolish economic
policies and how could they have done it different in a state
undergoing a historical revolution? The economy always goes down the
drain during such times.

>
> > Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
> > credible.
>
> I believe the polls were taken by independent news organizations.

Independent only in matter of speaking. US media is neither
disinterested nor completely unbaised or objective; it takes its
patriotic duty pretty seriously. What is acceptable and what
displeases the USG is clearly and publicly articulated and largely its
preferences are adhered to by US media companies. How much value would
you ascribe to a poll taken by Al-jazeera or by Fox? Being independent
is a prequiste but certainly not sufficient for being objective.

>
> Jarg

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:41:34 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
>
>> > Dubyah's favourite whine is that everyone who is not 100%
>> > behind him is giving in to terrorism.
>>
>> What would you call it, instead?
>
>I would it call it seeking a way of fighting terrorism
>which is driven by knowledge and common sense
>instead of testosterone.

Sounds like a speech from the PHB files. Has a whole lot of fluff
that doesn't say anything. Exactly *what* would you do?

[John Cook]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:47:37 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:41:34 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:
>
>>"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> > Dubyah's favourite whine is that everyone who is not 100%
>>> > behind him is giving in to terrorism.
>>>
>>> What would you call it, instead?
>>
>>I would it call it seeking a way of fighting terrorism
>>which is driven by knowledge and common sense
>>instead of testosterone.
>
>Sounds like a speech from the PHB files. Has a whole lot of fluff
>that doesn't say anything. Exactly *what* would you do?


Well.....

Firstly the US needs to hand control to the UN(if they want it???),
this will allay some of the fears of the Eastern world, the UN _with_
the Arab league should pull all US troops back into their bases on day
one, The local police force should do patrols and only be backed up by
military forces with the police having the say on when force is to be
employed and when to back off.(the sooner the Iraqi's see an Eastern
soldier instead of US/UK forces the better).

There are a number of problems with this, the main one being the US
with its 'I'm in charge attitude', they must be seen to cede control
to an international body both in spirit and in practice(strangly this
was suggested before the war started).

The second major problem is the attitude that the US has fostered in
Iraq, its now much harder to sell any foreign troops in Iraq as peace
keepers, they are seen as a occupying force and as such its an
infinitley harder job.

Local neibourhood watch schemes arranged by the Clergy (as this was
the only structure left after occupation, as the Army, security
services, Police, were desbanded, now that was a big mistake!!!), This
will give local autonomy to the people, they may choose their area to
be a no go area to the US, but they should accept that foreign troops
are required for security (Arab league to fill in here).

The last problem is to pursuade the rest of the world to come in and
risk their lives for what is undoubtly one of the worst US inspired
cock-ups, its quite easy to sit back and watch the US get deeper and
deeper, and even 'better' to watch Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfield trying to
remain credable in the face of undeniable evidence, This bailout
should not occur without a certain amount of humble pie being
consumed, the US really really needs to learn from this.
Sadly the US will continue its current policy, as humble pie is
infinitely worse than a mounting death toll and civil unrest, only a
change of Government will allow the US to back out with any dignity at
all.

Your question is a bit loaded, in the solution is a lot harder now
than it would have been if they had listened.

Rather reminds me of the old addage "if they had let all the kings
men have a go at fixing Humpty Dumpty _before_ all the kings horses
they may have had a chance of putting him back together again.

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Jarg]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > >
> > > Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
> > > or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
> > > persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.
> >
> > Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
> > decisions including eligible candidates in elections.
>
> There are always limits to a pure democracy - for instance the
> judiciary or a constitutional head of state in most west minister type
> democracies. Not that I am arguing that the current state in the
> evolution of the Iranian democratic state is examplary, but it is
> pretty good progress overall compared to the American supported ideal
> - the Shah Monarchy.
>


I see little democracy in Iran, certainly no more than occured under the
Shah. How many of the candidates were disallowed by the mullahs in the last
elections?


> I never said that Iran was a democracy in the image of the US - but it
> is a functioning and vibrant democracy none the less, and more
> importantly evolving towards a better state, with all the ups and
> downs in its journey. Before comparing it to Swiss, UK or US model
> please remember that they just had a bloody revolution and a bloodier
> war and not few hundred years of fairly peaceful and economically
> productive years in which to evolve.
>
> And if you think that it is way too authoritarian then just look at
> the manner in which in which a single terrorist attack has undermined
> the civil liberties in the US and how that nation has taken the first
> tentative steps towards the establishment of a police state.


What an absurd idea. Do you live in the US?


Iran has
> had to deal with worse - including now the damocles sword of threat of
> invasion for future possible transgressions.
> > Which isn't to say
> > the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does,
but
> > only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
> > exposed to indoctrination.
>
> Exactly the same could be said, for instance, of the US. Most of its
> citizens are poorly educated about Iraq or Iran and are constantly
> exposed to indoctrination by the media, even the reviled US 'liberal'
> media would be far right of center in most countries.
>


Most Americans are far better educated than the average Iranian with the
added benefit that they have a free press as a source of information. The
US media is much more varied than you allow.


> >
> > >
> > > And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
> > > political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.
> > >
> >
> > Hard to say, but I doubt this is true.
>
> Standing external threat, the axis of evil rhetoric, threats and talk
> of invasions, expressed desire to overthrow the current regime make
> the those in control justifiably paranoid and weakens the hands of the
> reformers. This is obvious.
>
> > The Iranian government isn't just
> > reacting to US policy.
>
> Ofcourse not. That would ascribe to the US for more influence than it
> enjoys; but it is certainly a major (or THE major) factor in the
> Iranian calculations.
>
> > It has its own agenda that clashes sharply with the
> > interests
>
> Good for them. Which country does not have its own agenda? I dont see
> any particular reason that Iran should apologitic about a 'Iran first'
> agenda. And another way to put it would be that Western interests
> clash sharply with persian interests. As far as I know Iran is not
> publicly planning and equipping for global domination or a New Iranian
> Century. No Iranian carrier battle groups conduct freedom of
> navigation excercises off Boston Harbour, occasionally shooting down
> airliners. There is no funding for overthrowing the Bush regime and
> bringing 'true' democracy to America.
>


Don't try to pretend there is some equivalence between US and Iran. Iran
is a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy which has largely had a negative
influence in the world. The US is recognized as the leader of the
democratic world and a source of inspiration for many freedom loving people.
As for the presence of US force, they serve to help protect other nations in
the region from Iran. It's hard to imagine that any US sponsored change of
government in Iran wouldn't be an improvement.


> > of the civilized world.
>
> This is unadulterated hubris.
>


Not at all. Examples of uncivilized behavior are abundant, for example
public beatings, sponsorship of terrorists, hostage taking, etc.


> >
> > >
> > > Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
> > > wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
> > > in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
> > > been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.
> > >
> >
> > I thought you said they have a democracy! The Shah was by far the most
> > progressive government Iran has had, which isn't saying much.
>
> Wow! the US installed Shah monarchy with its savak terror was an
> improvement over the Mossadegh government?
>


Indeed it was. Mossadegh's only notable (and foolish) idea was the
attempted nationalization of British assets. He demostrated clear
tendancies towards demogogary. Many of his peers believed he aspired to
dictatorship. Whereas the Shah made a concerted effort to drag Iran into
the modern world, including efforts at increasing literacy, land reform and
voting rights for women. Incidentally, repression under the Islamic
government is well documented and much worse than it ever was under the Shah
and the "savak terror".


> And look at the state of democracy in Iran, which broke its US
> shackles with those still under western influence - KSA et al.
>
> > The economy
> > of Iran improved dramatically under the Shah and collapsed when he was
> > overthrown.
>
> A rise and decline in which the US had a prominient part to play.
>


The current Iranian government has only itself is to blame, including its
poor economic policies - centralized planning, lack of diversification, and
state ownership of key industries for example - and the isolation resulting
from efforts to spread Islamic revolution.


Part of that was Saddams doing, but mostly it is the result of
> > foolish governement political and economic policies.
>
> Politically it was a time for terror and counter-terror which any way
> you look at it sucks. But what exactly were the foolish economic
> policies and how could they have done it different in a state
> undergoing a historical revolution? The economy always goes down the
> drain during such times.
>
> >
> > > Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
> > > credible.
> >
> > I believe the polls were taken by independent news organizations.
>
> Independent only in matter of speaking. US media is neither
> disinterested nor completely unbaised or objective; it takes its
> patriotic duty pretty seriously. What is acceptable and what
> displeases the USG is clearly and publicly articulated and largely its
> preferences are adhered to by US media companies. How much value would
> you ascribe to a poll taken by Al-jazeera or by Fox? Being independent
> is a prequiste but certainly not sufficient for being objective.
>
> >


It doesn't follow that an organizations ideoliogical biases would show in
the polls it takes. In any case the polls being discussed are not by any
given organization but by many.

Jarg

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:47:37 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:41:34 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>> > Dubyah's favourite whine is that everyone who is not 100%
> >>> > behind him is giving in to terrorism.
> >>>
> >>> What would you call it, instead?
> >>
> >>I would it call it seeking a way of fighting terrorism
> >>which is driven by knowledge and common sense
> >>instead of testosterone.
> >
> >Sounds like a speech from the PHB files. Has a whole lot of fluff
> >that doesn't say anything. Exactly *what* would you do?
>
>
> Well.....
>
> Firstly the US needs to hand control to the UN(if they want it???),

That would be the same UN that cut-and-ran after the bombing a few months
ago? Or the same UN that blew the nation building effort in Somalia?
Ooops--forgot--they are one and the same, huh? Yeah, right...

> this will allay some of the fears of the Eastern world, the UN _with_
> the Arab league should pull all US troops back into their bases on day
> one,

LOL! Now that's a realistic posit! And just who would be prepared to step in
on Day One and take over the security mission? The *Spanish*, perhaps?! Or
maybe the French--uh-oh, I forgot--neither of them could get sufficient
forces into the TO in a timely manner without US support... So, maybe you
think the Syrians and Iranians should be trusted to handle the mission...?!

The local police force should do patrols and only be backed up by
> military forces with the police having the say on when force is to be
> employed and when to back off.(the sooner the Iraqi's see an Eastern
> soldier instead of US/UK forces the better).

*What* military forces? You just took out the major force provider, and I
doubt the Brits have the resources available to pick up the rest of Iraq...

>
> There are a number of problems with this, the main one being the US
> with its 'I'm in charge attitude', they must be seen to cede control
> to an international body both in spirit and in practice(strangly this
> was suggested before the war started).

Better yet, we could "cede control" back to the Iraqis themselves, while
staying there to continue providing security support...oh, wait a second,
that is what we *are* going to do...

>
> The second major problem is the attitude that the US has fostered in
> Iraq, its now much harder to sell any foreign troops in Iraq as peace
> keepers, they are seen as a occupying force and as such its an
> infinitley harder job.

And that "attitude" is what exactly? Any concrete statistics to support what
the "attitude" is for the majority of Iraqis? Like that BBC poll a month or
so back...

>
> Local neibourhood watch schemes arranged by the Clergy (as this was
> the only structure left after occupation, as the Army, security
> services, Police, were desbanded, now that was a big mistake!!!),

Was it? You know for sure that the level of violence would have been lower,
given that Saddam loyalists were entrenched in each organization?

This
> will give local autonomy to the people, they may choose their area to
> be a no go area to the US, but they should accept that foreign troops
> are required for security (Arab league to fill in here).

Uhmmm--what "Arab league" fill are you talking about, eh? Toss out the
Syrians and Iranians (the latter not being a member of any Arab League,
but...); the Saudis seem to have their hands full combating the terrorist
threat within their own borders, and ditto that for the Yemenis. The
Kuwaitis are both too small in number and would likely not be extremely
welcome themselves. The Gulf states could offer only a token force--they
just don't have the muscle available in the needed numbers. Jordan could
probably contribute some troops--but then again, as we saw this weekend,
they also have other fish to fry. Which leaves you what, Libya, Egypt,
Morocco, and Algeria? Which you expect to be able to deploy enough troops
into theater on "Day One"?! I don't think so...

>
> The last problem is to pursuade the rest of the world to come in and
> risk their lives for what is undoubtly one of the worst US inspired
> cock-ups,

Have you ever expressed any opinion favorable of the US in any form or
fashion? I don't recall it if you ever did...

its quite easy to sit back and watch the US get deeper and
> deeper, and even 'better' to watch Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfield trying to
> remain credable in the face of undeniable evidence,

What "undeniable evidence", and of what?

This bailout
> should not occur without a certain amount of humble pie being
> consumed, the US really really needs to learn from this.

Ahhh, the true sentiment of your philosophy begins to emerge..."dem nasty
'mercans need to be taught a lesson!" Which tends to discredit most of your
ranting as being rather biased...again.

Brooks

> Sadly the US will continue its current policy, as humble pie is
> infinitely worse than a mounting death toll and civil unrest, only a
> change of Government will allow the US to back out with any dignity at
> all.
>
> Your question is a bit loaded, in the solution is a lot harder now
> than it would have been if they had listened.
>
> Rather reminds me of the old addage "if they had let all the kings
> men have a go at fixing Humpty Dumpty _before_ all the kings horses
> they may have had a chance of putting him back together again.
>
> Cheers
> John Cook
>
> Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
> opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
>
> Email Address :-
> Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
> Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Kerryn Offord]

Jarg wrote:

> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>
>>Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
>>or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
>>persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.
>
>
> Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
> decisions including eligible candidates in elections. Which isn't to say
> the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does, but
> only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
> exposed to indoctrination.

Hmmm...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US president can veto political
decisions etc can't he?

[John Cook]

>> Well.....
>>
>> Firstly the US needs to hand control to the UN(if they want it???),
>
>That would be the same UN that cut-and-ran after the bombing a few months
>ago? Or the same UN that blew the nation building effort in Somalia?
>Ooops--forgot--they are one and the same, huh? Yeah, right...

Fools rush in where angles fear to tread!!, seems quite apt at
present.

The UN presence (600 aid workers) in Iraq was a team who were trying
to run aid to a country crippled by numerous attacks, they were there
to stop the population dying of starvation, they left after the second
attack when 22 of that 600 got blown up and the US could not provide
basic security, by any measure its time to go!!!

The UN said 'don't go in yet, give the inspectors time to discover
the existance of WMD' and well see about a united front after that.

The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral decisive
force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US friendly
'version' of events.

Seems History is repeating itself....

>> this will allay some of the fears of the Eastern world, the UN _with_
>> the Arab league should pull all US troops back into their bases on day
>> one,
>
>LOL! Now that's a realistic posit! And just who would be prepared to step in
>on Day One and take over the security mission? The *Spanish*, perhaps?! Or
>maybe the French--uh-oh, I forgot--neither of them could get sufficient
>forces into the TO in a timely manner without US support... So, maybe you
>think the Syrians and Iranians should be trusted to handle the mission...?!

The Spanish have stated quite plainly that a UN run force would be
acceptable, the alternative forces (IE those countries that want to
help the US get out of a bad situation) would patrol on day one with
Iraqi's police, then use a graduated response with the Iraqi police
being able to call in _reasonable_ force if required, and a whole lot
of force when necessary.

>
>The local police force should do patrols and only be backed up by
>> military forces with the police having the say on when force is to be
>> employed and when to back off.(the sooner the Iraqi's see an Eastern
>> soldier instead of US/UK forces the better).
>
>*What* military forces? You just took out the major force provider, and I
>doubt the Brits have the resources available to pick up the rest of Iraq...

What are you babbling on about?, I'm talking about diffusing a US
made problem where the US presence _Is_ the problem, Keep them out of
sight unless absolutley necessary...that doesn't mean scuttle off back
stateside when the poor buggers who have to try and fix the mess
arrive.
No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear up
the mess you created.

>>
>> There are a number of problems with this, the main one being the US
>> with its 'I'm in charge attitude', they must be seen to cede control
>> to an international body both in spirit and in practice(strangly this
>> was suggested before the war started).
>
>Better yet, we could "cede control" back to the Iraqis themselves, while
>staying there to continue providing security support...oh, wait a second,
>that is what we *are* going to do...

No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have been
absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?, You
have to be a bit dense to not see the problem, these hand picked
Iraqi's don't represent the people, for the majority of Iraqi's these
are just western lackys,. the French vichy government springs to mind.
>>
>> The second major problem is the attitude that the US has fostered in
>> Iraq, its now much harder to sell any foreign troops in Iraq as peace
>> keepers, they are seen as a occupying force and as such its an
>> infinitley harder job.
>
>And that "attitude" is what exactly? Any concrete statistics to support what
>the "attitude" is for the majority of Iraqis? Like that BBC poll a month or
>so back...

Well 700 US deaths seems a pretty concrete statistic, several thousand
Iraqi's dead trying to fight the US seems like another good one, not
to mention the 50 odd attacks every day.

I a bit wary of polls, especially ones by gun toting military regimes,
70% of Iraqi's think the US is doing a good job, Hmmm. impressive,
however in the last Iraqi poll before the invasion 99% of Iraqi's
preferred Saddam and reelected him, Hmmm, even more impressive.

What was that questions they asked wasn't it something like "do you
want the US to stay or leave the country to anarchy and roaming gangs
of bandits" and "do you wish to vote for Mr Hussain or be beaten to
death and your family tortured" Naturally I'm paraphrasing here.
>>
>> Local neibourhood watch schemes arranged by the Clergy (as this was
>> the only structure left after occupation, as the Army, security
>> services, Police, were desbanded, now that was a big mistake!!!),
>
>Was it? You know for sure that the level of violence would have been lower,
>given that Saddam loyalists were entrenched in each organization?

Well if Mr Rumsfield is correct there are large numbers of republican
guard roaming around attacking US forces in felluja, having them in
there old units would have made tracking them a lot easier, rather
than having several thousand ex soldiers milling around the town.,
their old command structure may have helped, I can't say how much it
would have helped, Just as I can't put a figure on how many more
insurgents were created by the felluja attacks, but attacking civilian
dwelling places certainly doesn't win hearts and minds, and you now
see the results, the insurgents have a rich new source of ex military
men who are slightly miffed about having there friends and relatives
killed by the US who state "its to make fullaja safe"!!!.

>This
>> will give local autonomy to the people, they may choose their area to
>> be a no go area to the US, but they should accept that foreign troops
>> are required for security (Arab league to fill in here).
>
>Uhmmm--what "Arab league" fill are you talking about, eh? Toss out the
>Syrians and Iranians (the latter not being a member of any Arab League,
>but...);

That doesn't preclude them from helping the US out now does it??.


>the Saudis seem to have their hands full combating the terrorist
>threat within their own borders, and ditto that for the Yemenis.

>The
>Kuwaitis are both too small in number and would likely not be extremely
>welcome themselves. The Gulf states could offer only a token force--they
>just don't have the muscle available in the needed numbers. Jordan could
>probably contribute some troops--but then again, as we saw this weekend,
>they also have other fish to fry. Which leaves you what, Libya, Egypt,
>Morocco, and Algeria? Which you expect to be able to deploy enough troops
>into theater on "Day One"?! I don't think so...

You don't need tens of thousands, you need peacekeepers, preferably
muslims, preferably sunni's or shia who will patrol areas where the US
presence is not tolerated by the locals (you know! the ones you freed
from Saddams oppression), you keep the US well out of sight in those
areas unless called for, its about diffusing the situation!!!.

>
>>
>> The last problem is to pursuade the rest of the world to come in and
>> risk their lives for what is undoubtly one of the worst US inspired
>> cock-ups,
>
>Have you ever expressed any opinion favorable of the US in any form or
>fashion? I don't recall it if you ever did...

I don't recall you ever saying the US has cocked right up with Iraq, I
happen to agree with (IIRC) Abdul Nasser who said "The Americans dont
make simple mistakes, they make big huge complicated ones, which leave
the rest of us scratching our heads wondering if we have possible
missed something"

>
>its quite easy to sit back and watch the US get deeper and
>> deeper, and even 'better' to watch Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfield trying to
>> remain credable in the face of undeniable evidence,
>
>What "undeniable evidence", and of what?

Look at the pictures, read the news, compare to what is being said, a
week of fighting 70+ US troops dead, several hundred Iraqi's dead, and
its been a 'difficult' week.now the british are masters of
understatement this however boarders on the bizarre,

Another quote:-
"This makes you wonder about Rumsfeld, who a year ago declared that he
knew where Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were. Last week,
Rumsfeld said: "I certainly would not have estimated that we would
have had the number of individuals lost that we had lost in the last
week." This is the same Rumsfeld who said last year: "It is precisely
because of our overwhelming power and our certainty of victory that we
believe we can win this war and remove the regime while still striving
to spare innocent lives. Our military capabilities are so devastating
and precise that we can destroy an Iraqi tank under a bridge without
damaging the bridge. We do not need to kill thousands of innocent
Iraqis to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

From the same man who predicted "Rumsfeld boasted that Iraqi military
personnel would become our loyal friends once "they are persuaded that
the regime is history."

Now I may be a bit cynical, but 'loyal friends' dont tend to trade
fire , bomb, and RPG's at each other, at least not in Australia, New
York may be different.:-).

Do you see any difference in whats being said and reality?????

>This bailout
>> should not occur without a certain amount of humble pie being
>> consumed, the US really really needs to learn from this.
>
>Ahhh, the true sentiment of your philosophy begins to emerge..."dem nasty
>'mercans need to be taught a lesson!" Which tends to discredit most of your
>ranting as being rather biased...again.

I'm Biased because I think the US has made a tremendous error of
judgement!!!.

Hmm. why do I think the US _should_ learn from this?, perhaps it may
stop them invading a soverign country on the pretext of ficticious
WMD, thus avoiding the deaths of several thousand civilains, several
hundred coalition troops, and removing the western intellegence
services credability (this is very worrying as if the US does find out
something nasty who the hell will believe them.)

The US has made a mistake why don't you admit it, the Iraqi situation
is not going to go down in history as a glowing example of :-
1. Intellegence gathering.
2. Diplomacy.
3. International relations.
4. Religious harmony.
5. Strategy.
6. Tatics.


So as an unbiased observer of the situation in Iraq whats its
successes???


Cheers


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[John Cook]

Iraqi poll details

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3CF8D5B8-AD90-4C6D-AA0D-E21849087D3D.htm.

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Brett]

"John Cook" > wrote:
> Iraqi poll details
>
>
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3CF8D5B8-AD90-4C6D-AA0D-E21849087D3D.htm.

The above link doesn't list the questions asked or what "groups" were
questioned.

The actual Iraqi poll details can be found here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> Well.....
> >>
> >> Firstly the US needs to hand control to the UN(if they want it???),
> >
> >That would be the same UN that cut-and-ran after the bombing a few months
> >ago? Or the same UN that blew the nation building effort in Somalia?
> >Ooops--forgot--they are one and the same, huh? Yeah, right...
>
> Fools rush in where angles fear to tread!!, seems quite apt at
> present.

What does geometry have to do with it? :)

>
> The UN presence (600 aid workers) in Iraq was a team who were trying
> to run aid to a country crippled by numerous attacks, they were there
> to stop the population dying of starvation, they left after the second
> attack when 22 of that 600 got blown up and the US could not provide
> basic security, by any measure its time to go!!!

But you expect them to rush back in when someone else is providing the
security, and demonstrate a herewithto never displayed sense of serious
resolve...yeah, right. Would you be interested in purchasing some really
nice beachfront property in southern Arizona...? Or maybe a bridge...?


>
> The UN said 'don't go in yet, give the inspectors time to discover
> the existance of WMD' and well see about a united front after that.

They passed 1441. In what, 1991? And could not figure out how to effectively
enforce it for a bit over a decade. Real effective organization you got
there... And I don't recall any promises of a subsequent "united front";
given that we had France and Germany in the mix, any such promise, even if
it *did* exist (which I don't think it did) would have not been worth the
hot air it was made up of.

>
> The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
> Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral decisive
> force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US friendly
> 'version' of events.

LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they "rescued"?
You are letting your animosity towards all things US-ian gobber up your
tenuous grasp of the real facts. And while you are rereading Bowden's book,
note how much effort was required in order to get the Malays and Pakis
moving that day. Finally, you should review the facts of the matter in
regards to "unilateral action"--ISTR it was the UN Sec General who was
pushing the "Get Aidid and build a nation instead of just ensure they can
get relief suppplies distributed" strategy. Clinton was just gullible enough
to buy into it.

>
> Seems History is repeating itself....
>
> >> this will allay some of the fears of the Eastern world, the UN _with_
> >> the Arab league should pull all US troops back into their bases on day
> >> one,
> >
> >LOL! Now that's a realistic posit! And just who would be prepared to step
in
> >on Day One and take over the security mission? The *Spanish*, perhaps?!
Or
> >maybe the French--uh-oh, I forgot--neither of them could get sufficient
> >forces into the TO in a timely manner without US support... So, maybe you
> >think the Syrians and Iranians should be trusted to handle the
mission...?!
>
> The Spanish have stated quite plainly that a UN run force would be
> acceptable, the alternative forces (IE those countries that want to
> help the US get out of a bad situation) would patrol on day one with
> Iraqi's police, then use a graduated response with the Iraqi police
> being able to call in _reasonable_ force if required, and a whole lot
> of force when necessary.

A-hem. And how are you getting the "alternative force" there in that
timeframe? Without US support, since you have dictated that we should
hightail it out of there on "Day One" (which also brings your increasingly
fragile grasp of military reality into question--never heard of "battle
hand-off", huh?).

>
> >
> >The local police force should do patrols and only be backed up by
> >> military forces with the police having the say on when force is to be
> >> employed and when to back off.(the sooner the Iraqi's see an Eastern
> >> soldier instead of US/UK forces the better).
> >
> >*What* military forces? You just took out the major force provider, and I
> >doubt the Brits have the resources available to pick up the rest of
Iraq...
>
> What are you babbling on about?, I'm talking about diffusing a US
> made problem where the US presence _Is_ the problem, Keep them out of
> sight unless absolutley necessary...

Oh! So now it is "unless absolutely necessary", not your previous, "Get the
hell out of Dodge before sundown, pardner!"? So what you are really
proposing is a token parade ground force, with the US remaining there to
handle the things when "absolutely necessary"? Flip-flop much?

that doesn't mean scuttle off back
> stateside when the poor buggers who have to try and fix the mess
> arrive.
> No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear up
> the mess you created.

No, you said we had to pull back on "Day One", quite specifically in fact.
Now you make it sound as if you want us there to do the heavy hitting, but
we should "keep off the grass, and stay in the back of the bus" otherwise,
huh? You ARE rather rabid with your anti-Americanism, aren't you?

>
> >>
> >> There are a number of problems with this, the main one being the US
> >> with its 'I'm in charge attitude', they must be seen to cede control
> >> to an international body both in spirit and in practice(strangly this
> >> was suggested before the war started).
> >
> >Better yet, we could "cede control" back to the Iraqis themselves, while
> >staying there to continue providing security support...oh, wait a second,
> >that is what we *are* going to do...
>
> No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have been
> absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?,

Who said they don't? I keep hearing this "Iraqis want this, Iraqis want
that" crap...from non-Iraqis such as yourself. But when the independent
press does a real poll of the *Iraqis*, it seems the majority thought the US
was right to go into Iraq, and about 40% of them are in favor of continued
coalition presence (82% among the Kurdish minority), and only a *very* slim
majority (51%) were opposed to continued coalition presence. 70% think that
things are "good" now in Iraq, 56% think that they are better off now than
they were when the operation kicked off, and 71% are optimistic that things
will be even better next year. Given that last figure, where do reach this
astonishing conclusion that "the locals don't want" the provisional
government to take over? Keep in mind that only 30% of those polled rated
holding national elections in their top three priotrities, and only 8% put
it at number one; likewise, only 17% put regaining their own governance as
being in the top three, and only a whopping THREE percent put it at number
one. While an even fifty percent rated their local governance as "good". But
I guess you will conclude that this joint ABC/BBC

You
> have to be a bit dense to not see the problem, these hand picked
> Iraqi's don't represent the people, for the majority of Iraqi's these
> are just western lackys,. the French vichy government springs to mind.
> >>
> >> The second major problem is the attitude that the US has fostered in
> >> Iraq, its now much harder to sell any foreign troops in Iraq as peace
> >> keepers, they are seen as a occupying force and as such its an
> >> infinitley harder job.
> >
> >And that "attitude" is what exactly? Any concrete statistics to support
what
> >the "attitude" is for the majority of Iraqis? Like that BBC poll a month
or
> >so back...
>
> Well 700 US deaths seems a pretty concrete statistic, several thousand
> Iraqi's dead trying to fight the US seems like another good one, not
> to mention the 50 odd attacks every day.
>
> I a bit wary of polls,

I can see why, being as the most recent truly independent one (joint
BBC/ABC/ARD effort, not a "gun toting military regime"--or have you never
experienced the joy of listening to Peter Jennings bash our President?)
indicates that only a (GET THIS, now) whopping FIFTEEN percent want the
coalition to "leave now". It sort of sucks when the results don't fit your
preconceived notions, huh? And you know how many are in favor of your UN
governance? One--yep, that is a big *1*, percent. Makes you kind of a
minority, huh?


especially ones by gun toting military regimes,
> 70% of Iraqi's think the US is doing a good job, Hmmm. impressive,
> however in the last Iraqi poll before the invasion 99% of Iraqi's
> preferred Saddam and reelected him, Hmmm, even more impressive.
>
> What was that questions they asked wasn't it something like "do you
> want the US to stay or leave the country to anarchy and roaming gangs
> of bandits" and "do you wish to vote for Mr Hussain or be beaten to
> death and your family tortured" Naturally I'm paraphrasing here.

No, you are either verging upon lying or are just utterly clueless, based
upon reading the actual poll results. And if you think either the BBC or ABC
have been "pro-Bush" or "pro-involvement" in the Iraq case, you are SADLY
mistaken. You can gander at the actual results here...

abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/
Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

> >>
> >> Local neibourhood watch schemes arranged by the Clergy (as this was
> >> the only structure left after occupation, as the Army, security
> >> services, Police, were desbanded, now that was a big mistake!!!),
> >
> >Was it? You know for sure that the level of violence would have been
lower,
> >given that Saddam loyalists were entrenched in each organization?
>
> Well if Mr Rumsfield is correct there are large numbers of republican
> guard roaming around attacking US forces in felluja, having them in
> there old units would have made tracking them a lot easier, rather
> than having several thousand ex soldiers milling around the town.,
> their old command structure may have helped, I can't say how much it
> would have helped, Just as I can't put a figure on how many more
> insurgents were created by the felluja attacks, but attacking civilian
> dwelling places certainly doesn't win hearts and minds, and you now
> see the results, the insurgents have a rich new source of ex military
> men who are slightly miffed about having there friends and relatives
> killed by the US who state "its to make fullaja safe"!!!.

You have zero military experience? That would be my guess, based upon your
ridiculous assertion that having bad guys in your security units is better
than not having them there...

>
> >This
> >> will give local autonomy to the people, they may choose their area to
> >> be a no go area to the US, but they should accept that foreign troops
> >> are required for security (Arab league to fill in here).
> >
> >Uhmmm--what "Arab league" fill are you talking about, eh? Toss out the
> >Syrians and Iranians (the latter not being a member of any Arab League,
> >but...);
>
> That doesn't preclude them from helping the US out now does it??.

Sure...what kind of stuff are you smoking? You missed out on where the
recent VX attempt came from? And you think the Iranians are interested in a
stable, independent Iraq?! Geeze.

>
>
> >the Saudis seem to have their hands full combating the terrorist
> >threat within their own borders, and ditto that for the Yemenis.
>
> >The
> >Kuwaitis are both too small in number and would likely not be extremely
> >welcome themselves. The Gulf states could offer only a token force--they
> >just don't have the muscle available in the needed numbers. Jordan could
> >probably contribute some troops--but then again, as we saw this weekend,
> >they also have other fish to fry. Which leaves you what, Libya, Egypt,
> >Morocco, and Algeria? Which you expect to be able to deploy enough troops
> >into theater on "Day One"?! I don't think so...
>
> You don't need tens of thousands, you need peacekeepers, preferably
> muslims, preferably sunni's or shia who will patrol areas where the US
> presence is not tolerated by the locals (you know! the ones you freed
> from Saddams oppression), you keep the US well out of sight in those
> areas unless called for, its about diffusing the situation!!!.

Uhmmm--you do need tens of thousands. Take a gander at what is on the ground
now--you know, that coalition force that the vast majority of Iraqis want to
see remain in-place until such time as their own forces can handle security?
Which would indicate that the only thing needing defusing is the current
radical minority and their terrorist brethren. Stop making this out to be a
case of the majority of the Iraqis wanting us out NOW--that just is not
supported by the reputable poll results. BTW, do you have ANY supporting
evidence to back up YOUR claims? Any at all?

>
> >
> >>
> >> The last problem is to pursuade the rest of the world to come in and
> >> risk their lives for what is undoubtly one of the worst US inspired
> >> cock-ups,
> >
> >Have you ever expressed any opinion favorable of the US in any form or
> >fashion? I don't recall it if you ever did...
>
> I don't recall you ever saying the US has cocked right up with Iraq, I
> happen to agree with (IIRC) Abdul Nasser who said "The Americans dont
> make simple mistakes, they make big huge complicated ones, which leave
> the rest of us scratching our heads wondering if we have possible
> missed something"

Answer the question--have you expressed any opinion favorable of the US?
Ever?

>
> >
> >its quite easy to sit back and watch the US get deeper and
> >> deeper, and even 'better' to watch Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfield trying to
> >> remain credable in the face of undeniable evidence,
> >
> >What "undeniable evidence", and of what?
>
> Look at the pictures, read the news, compare to what is being said, a
> week of fighting 70+ US troops dead, several hundred Iraqi's dead, and
> its been a 'difficult' week.now the british are masters of
> understatement this however boarders on the bizarre,

Ahh, the "Chicken Little" approach. "The sky is falling!" Yeah, it is tough
sometimes--but the majority of the people over there want us to stay there
and finish the job. Interestingly, interviews with our own returning
military personnel seem to indicate the same thing--the majority of the
Iraqis are not hostile to us, and the troops believe in what they are doing.
And you don't--which is of course little surprise. Us bad ol' Mercans,
right?

>
> Another quote:-
> "This makes you wonder about Rumsfeld, who a year ago declared that he
> knew where Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were. Last week,
> Rumsfeld said: "I certainly would not have estimated that we would
> have had the number of individuals lost that we had lost in the last
> week." This is the same Rumsfeld who said last year: "It is precisely
> because of our overwhelming power and our certainty of victory that we
> believe we can win this war and remove the regime while still striving
> to spare innocent lives. Our military capabilities are so devastating
> and precise that we can destroy an Iraqi tank under a bridge without
> damaging the bridge. We do not need to kill thousands of innocent
> Iraqis to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Why do you post unattributed quotes, and even worse ones that are not
applicable to the discussion at hand?

>
> From the same man who predicted "Rumsfeld boasted that Iraqi military
> personnel would become our loyal friends once "they are persuaded that
> the regime is history."

What same man? And those poll results seem to indicate that only a minority
of Iraqis want us out NOW, etc. So where is your supporting evidence
demonstrating that the majority of Iraqis allegedly are hostile to us, and
want us out immediately? Huh?

>
> Now I may be a bit cynical, but 'loyal friends' dont tend to trade
> fire , bomb, and RPG's at each other, at least not in Australia, New
> York may be different.:-).

Did anyone say that *all* Iraqis would be amenable to the US action and
presence? Eh?

>
> Do you see any difference in whats being said and reality?????

No, I see that you are trying to twist both to suit your usual anti-US bias.

>
> >This bailout
> >> should not occur without a certain amount of humble pie being
> >> consumed, the US really really needs to learn from this.
> >
> >Ahhh, the true sentiment of your philosophy begins to emerge..."dem nasty
> >'mercans need to be taught a lesson!" Which tends to discredit most of
your
> >ranting as being rather biased...again.
>
> I'm Biased because I think the US has made a tremendous error of
> judgement!!!.

No, you are biased because you demonstrate a decidedly anti-American
propensity in all discussions, or at least those that I have watched you
wade into of late. Still awaiting those examples of your saying *anything*
good about the US...

>
> Hmm. why do I think the US _should_ learn from this?, perhaps it may
> stop them invading a soverign country on the pretext of ficticious
> WMD, thus avoiding the deaths of several thousand civilains, several
> hundred coalition troops, and removing the western intellegence
> services credability (this is very worrying as if the US does find out
> something nasty who the hell will believe them.)
>
> The US has made a mistake why don't you admit it, the Iraqi situation
> is not going to go down in history as a glowing example of :-
> 1. Intellegence gathering.
> 2. Diplomacy.
> 3. International relations.
> 4. Religious harmony.
> 5. Strategy.
> 6. Tatics.

Strategy and "tatics" are two things you have demonstrated an ample
misunderstanding of, Mr. "Let's get the bad guys into our security
forces--yeah, *that's* the ticket!"

>
>
> So as an unbiased observer of the situation in Iraq whats its
> successes???

I am not unbiased--I just admit it, unlike you.

Brooks

>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> John Cook
>
> Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
> opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
>
> Email Address :-
> Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
> Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> Iraqi poll details
>
>
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3CF8D5B8-AD90-4C6D-AA0D-E21849087D3D.htm.
>

Nice try, John! But you may want to read *all* of the results of that poll
(which is, by the way, the same one I already quoted to you elsewhere)--only
15% are in favor of us leaving NOW, the remainder wanting us to remain until
things are capable of being handled by their own security forces.

Brooks

> Cheers
> John Cook
>
> Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
> opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
>
> Email Address :-
> Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
> Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Kevin Brooks]

"Kerryn Offord" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jarg wrote:
>
> > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >>
> >>Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
> >>or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
> >>persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.
> >
> >
> > Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
> > decisions including eligible candidates in elections. Which isn't to
say
> > the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does,
but
> > only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
> > exposed to indoctrination.
>
> Hmmm...
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US president can veto political
> decisions etc can't he?

Not irrevocably he can't. Provisions are in place for overriding a veto, and
they have indeed been used. DON'T try to cast the US as being similar to
Iran in terms of level of democratic freedom--you will lose, badly.

Brooks

Brooks
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> Well.....
> >>
> >> Firstly the US needs to hand control to the UN(if they want it???),
> >
> >That would be the same UN that cut-and-ran after the bombing a few months
> >ago? Or the same UN that blew the nation building effort in Somalia?
> >Ooops--forgot--they are one and the same, huh? Yeah, right...
>
> Fools rush in where angles fear to tread!!, seems quite apt at
> present.
>
> The UN presence (600 aid workers) in Iraq was a team who were trying
> to run aid to a country crippled by numerous attacks, they were there
> to stop the population dying of starvation, they left after the second
> attack when 22 of that 600 got blown up and the US could not provide
> basic security, by any measure its time to go!!!
>

Problem with that theory is that they DECLINED the US offer to
provide increased security and decided they could do without it.

Kofi Annan later fired the UN officials responsible, his announcement
stated that the official concerned "appeared to be blinded by the
conviction that UN personnel and installations would not become
a target of attack, despite the clear warnings to the contrary".

Of the 2 officers directly responsible for overseeing security the
report said

""These two officers displayed profound lack of responsibility and
ineptitude"

Keith

[John Cook]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:18:37 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>> Iraqi poll details
>>
>>
>http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3CF8D5B8-AD90-4C6D-AA0D-E21849087D3D.htm.
>>
>
>Nice try, John! But you may want to read *all* of the results of that poll
>(which is, by the way, the same one I already quoted to you elsewhere)--only
>15% are in favor of us leaving NOW, the remainder wanting us to remain until
>things are capable of being handled by their own security forces.
>

And 35% say they should leave on June 30th 2004, or put another way
59.2% want them out on or before June 30th (q29), don't you just love
polls. (35%+15.1%+8.3%);-)

Where were they conducting these polls? (what social/economic
diversity was polled, there's so many ifs and buts you'd be hard
pressed to prove anything from a poll of under 3000 people), and to
be honest you'd be mental to go polling in any hotspots, I personally
would make up the results rather than wander round falluja with a
clipboard.

another said the that Japan (Q11) is at the top of the list of
rebuilding nations.... I have to wonder how they got such a high
mark???.


>Brooks
>
>> Cheers
>> John Cook
>>
>> Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
>> opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
>>
>> Email Address :-
>> Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
>> Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
>

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[John Cook]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:02:16 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >> Well.....
>> >>
>> >> Firstly the US needs to hand control to the UN(if they want it???),
>> >
>> >That would be the same UN that cut-and-ran after the bombing a few months
>> >ago? Or the same UN that blew the nation building effort in Somalia?
>> >Ooops--forgot--they are one and the same, huh? Yeah, right...
>>
>> Fools rush in where angles fear to tread!!, seems quite apt at
>> present.
>>
>> The UN presence (600 aid workers) in Iraq was a team who were trying
>> to run aid to a country crippled by numerous attacks, they were there
>> to stop the population dying of starvation, they left after the second
>> attack when 22 of that 600 got blown up and the US could not provide
>> basic security, by any measure its time to go!!!
>>
>
>Problem with that theory is that they DECLINED the US offer to
>provide increased security and decided they could do without it.

Ah! my apologies! I stand corrected,

>Kofi Annan later fired the UN officials responsible, his announcement
>stated that the official concerned "appeared to be blinded by the
>conviction that UN personnel and installations would not become
>a target of attack, despite the clear warnings to the contrary".
>
>Of the 2 officers directly responsible for overseeing security the
>report said
>
>""These two officers displayed profound lack of responsibility and
>ineptitude"

It is without doubt a a very idiotic decision.


>Keith
>
>

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Brett]

"John Cook" > wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:18:37 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Iraqi poll details
> >>
> >>
>
>http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3CF8D5B8-AD90-4C6D-AA0D-E21849087D3D
..htm.
> >>
> >
> >Nice try, John! But you may want to read *all* of the results of that
poll
> >(which is, by the way, the same one I already quoted to you
elsewhere)--only
> >15% are in favor of us leaving NOW, the remainder wanting us to remain
until
> >things are capable of being handled by their own security forces.
> >
>
> And 35% say they should leave on June 30th 2004, or put another way
> 59.2% want them out on or before June 30th (q29), don't you just love
> polls. (35%+15.1%+8.3%);-)


Except Q29 didn't specify June 30th (and would depend on how the person
viewed what would "be" an Iraqi Government).
Q29 also depends on how the person responded to Q14a. Based on the responses
to 14a that is less than 10% ( 9.4% ) of those persons polled for that
question (about 250 people). The 90.6% not included would appear to not even
know that there are US and UK troops in Iraq - so their vote would be a vote
for never since they don't even know they are there. :-)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf

> Where were they conducting these polls? (what social/economic
> diversity was polled, there's so many ifs and buts you'd be hard
> pressed to prove anything from a poll of under 3000 people), and to
> be honest you'd be mental to go polling in any hotspots, I personally
> would make up the results rather than wander round falluja with a
> clipboard.
>
> another said the that Japan (Q11) is at the top of the list of
> rebuilding nations....

That depends on how you you read those numbers - Japan followed the US as
the country as the 1st choice

> I have to wonder how they got such a high
> mark???.

Given a choice between Japan and the UN which would you chose but how many
Japanese cars do you see in the various television news reports from
Iraq....

[Jarg]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > "MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spain's 1,400 troops in Iraq will be withdrawn
> > > "in the shortest possible time," the country's new prime minister said
> > > Sunday.
> >
> > Well, how could a Spanish government ask its soldiers to
> > risk their lives to implement a policy it does not believe in?
> > That would be an utterly impossible line to take. Zapatero
> > promised his voters that he would call the Spanish troops
> > back from Iraq over a year ago. He is keeping his promise --
> > such things happen, even in politics.
>
>
> There is another aspect to this. The outgoing Government had tried to
> blame the Madrid train bombing on ETA or other Basque seperatists.
> When the truth came out many Spaniards must have lost complete
> confidence in the Government and voted them out. Really a government
> that lies that much has to go in any democracy. This sort of
> irresponsibillity could have re-ignited the Basque seperatist issues.

Is there any proof that they lied? Sounded to me like they were incorrect
in their initial assumption, which is a different thing entirely. You do
understand the difference, right?

Jarg

[John Cook]

> > Fools rush in where angles fear to tread!!, seems quite apt at
> > present.
>
> What does geometry have to do with it? :)

Trust you to go off at a tangent. (see sig file)

> >
> > The UN presence (600 aid workers) in Iraq was a team who were trying
> > to run aid to a country crippled by numerous attacks, they were there
> > to stop the population dying of starvation, they left after the second
> > attack when 22 of that 600 got blown up and the US could not provide
> > basic security, by any measure its time to go!!!
>
> But you expect them to rush back in when someone else is providing the
> security, and demonstrate a herewithto never displayed sense of serious
> resolve...yeah, right. Would you be interested in purchasing some really
> nice beachfront property in southern Arizona...? Or maybe a bridge...?

Keith has pointed out in another post that the US offered protection
to the UN Aid workers which was flatly refused by the UN Security
service, an atrocious lack of judgement on their part.

>
> >
> > The UN said 'don't go in yet, give the inspectors time to discover
> > the existance of WMD' and well see about a united front after that.
>
> They passed 1441. In what, 1991? And could not figure out how to effectively
> enforce it for a bit over a decade. Real effective organization you got
> there... And I don't recall any promises of a subsequent "united front";
> given that we had France and Germany in the mix, any such promise, even if
> it *did* exist (which I don't think it did) would have not been worth the
> hot air it was made up of.

The bit in 1441 which allowed the US to invade Iraq :-

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to
use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2
August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution
660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the
area,"

The "all necessary means to _restore_ international peace and
security", was the bit they used to justify the war, the Security bit
was most important due to the 'underwealming' evidence of WMD that
Iraq had stockpiled that could be used within 45 mins.;-).

> >
> > The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
> > Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral decisive
> > force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US friendly
> > 'version' of events.
>
> LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they "rescued"?
> You are letting your animosity towards all things US-ian gobber up your
> tenuous grasp of the real facts. And while you are rereading Bowden's book,
> note how much effort was required in order to get the Malays and Pakis
> moving that day.
Would that be because they hadn't been advised that the US would mount
an operation on that day!!, you can't just expect everyone to be ready
to jump right on into a firefight without getting some kind of ROE and
authority from their superiors.
> >
> > The Spanish have stated quite plainly that a UN run force would be
> > acceptable, the alternative forces (IE those countries that want to
> > help the US get out of a bad situation) would patrol on day one with
> > Iraqi's police, then use a graduated response with the Iraqi police
> > being able to call in _reasonable_ force if required, and a whole lot
> > of force when necessary.
>
> A-hem. And how are you getting the "alternative force" there in that
> timeframe? Without US support,
Why without US support?, you get the 'alternatives' there, setup and
supplied, and ready to go then the UN takes over and day one starts!,
don't expect to drop everything and say theres the mess go clean it
up.
> Oh! So now it is "unless absolutely necessary", not your previous, "Get the
> hell out of Dodge before sundown, pardner!"? So what you are really
> proposing is a token parade ground force, with the US remaining there to
> handle the things when "absolutely necessary"? Flip-flop much?

You can describe it how you like if it diffuses the situation,
remember its your mess, the rest of the world may help you or not
theres no guarentees they would want to get involved in such a
debarkle.

> > No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear up
> > the mess you created.
>
> No, you said we had to pull back on "Day One", quite specifically in fact.
> Now you make it sound as if you want us there to do the heavy hitting, but
> we should "keep off the grass, and stay in the back of the bus" otherwise,
> huh? You ARE rather rabid with your anti-Americanism, aren't you?

It seems the Iraqi's are the ones you should be worry about being
anti-american, I personally am not anti-american, then again I'm not
pro-american.
do you believe such a state can exist??.


>
> >
> > No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have been
> > absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?,
>
> Who said they don't?
That poll you keep referring to 'look at who they don't want running
the Iraqi gov', Oh surprise surprise it the guy who lived in the US
for the last decade or two, We can argue the poll till doomsday comes,
the figures mean little in themselves from such a small sample.

> You have zero military experience?
Combat experience is zero, but have worked with them in several areas.

>That would be my guess, based upon your
> ridiculous assertion that having bad guys in your security units is better
> than not having them there...
Have you ever heard of keep your friends close and your enemies
closer, while there in a structure that is commanded by your side you
have a chance of controlling elements, as opposed to the present
situation.
> > You don't need tens of thousands, you need peacekeepers, preferably
> > muslims, preferably sunni's or shia who will patrol areas where the US
> > presence is not tolerated by the locals (you know! the ones you freed
> > from Saddams oppression), you keep the US well out of sight in those
> > areas unless called for, its about diffusing the situation!!!.
>
> Uhmmm--you do need tens of thousands. Take a gander at what is on the ground
> now--you know, that coalition force that the vast majority of Iraqis want to
> see remain in-place until such time as their own forces can handle security?
> Which would indicate that the only thing needing defusing is the current
> radical minority and their terrorist brethren. Stop making this out to be a
> case of the majority of the Iraqis wanting us out NOW--that just is not
> supported by the reputable poll results. BTW, do you have ANY supporting
> evidence to back up YOUR claims? Any at all?.

59.2% want the US out by june 30th or earlier from that poll...
> > >> The last problem is to pursuade the rest of the world to come in and
> > >> risk their lives for what is undoubtly one of the worst US inspired
> > >> cock-ups,
> > >
> > >Have you ever expressed any opinion favorable of the US in any form or
> > >fashion? I don't recall it if you ever did...
> >
> > I don't recall you ever saying the US has cocked right up with Iraq, I
> > happen to agree with (IIRC) Abdul Nasser who said "The Americans dont
> > make simple mistakes, they make big huge complicated ones, which leave
> > the rest of us scratching our heads wondering if we have possible
> > missed something"
>
> Answer the question--have you expressed any opinion favorable of the US?
> Ever?

yes I have, how about the US has a brillient military capability
easily a magatude better than any one else, now your turn! is Iraq a
cockup?.
> > I'm Biased because I think the US has made a tremendous error of
> > judgement!!!.
>
> No, you are biased because you demonstrate a decidedly anti-American
> propensity in all discussions, or at least those that I have watched you
> wade into of late. Still awaiting those examples of your saying *anything*
> good about the US...

What do you want me to say??, go on i'm interested?.
You have the best politicians money can buy perhaps:-)

> > So as an unbiased observer of the situation in Iraq whats its
> > successes???
>
> I am not unbiased--I just admit it, unlike you.


You avoided the question again... what are its successes?.

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
om...
> > > Fools rush in where angles fear to tread!!, seems quite apt at
> > > present.
> >
> > What does geometry have to do with it? :)
>
> Trust you to go off at a tangent. (see sig file)

I don't normally bother reading that crap following a post, be it a
disclaimer or an advertisement for someone's website.

>
> > >
> > > The UN presence (600 aid workers) in Iraq was a team who were trying
> > > to run aid to a country crippled by numerous attacks, they were there
> > > to stop the population dying of starvation, they left after the second
> > > attack when 22 of that 600 got blown up and the US could not provide
> > > basic security, by any measure its time to go!!!
> >
> > But you expect them to rush back in when someone else is providing the
> > security, and demonstrate a herewithto never displayed sense of serious
> > resolve...yeah, right. Would you be interested in purchasing some really
> > nice beachfront property in southern Arizona...? Or maybe a bridge...?
>
> Keith has pointed out in another post that the US offered protection
> to the UN Aid workers which was flatly refused by the UN Security
> service, an atrocious lack of judgement on their part.

Which is maybe another reason why most of the Iraqis seem not to place much
confidence in the UN...

>
> >
> > >
> > > The UN said 'don't go in yet, give the inspectors time to discover
> > > the existance of WMD' and well see about a united front after that.
> >
> > They passed 1441. In what, 1991? And could not figure out how to
effectively
> > enforce it for a bit over a decade. Real effective organization you got
> > there... And I don't recall any promises of a subsequent "united front";
> > given that we had France and Germany in the mix, any such promise, even
if
> > it *did* exist (which I don't think it did) would have not been worth
the
> > hot air it was made up of.
>
> The bit in 1441 which allowed the US to invade Iraq :-
>
> "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to
> use all
> necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2
> August
> 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution
> 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the
> area,"
>
> The "all necessary means to _restore_ international peace and
> security", was the bit they used to justify the war, the Security bit
> was most important due to the 'underwealming' evidence of WMD that
> Iraq had stockpiled that could be used within 45 mins.;-).

I don't think I'd talk about "underwhelming" until the source of that VX in
Jordan is finally determined...

>
> > >
> > > The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
> > > Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral decisive
> > > force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US friendly
> > > 'version' of events.
> >
> > LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they
"rescued"?
> > You are letting your animosity towards all things US-ian gobber up your
> > tenuous grasp of the real facts. And while you are rereading Bowden's
book,
> > note how much effort was required in order to get the Malays and Pakis
> > moving that day.

> Would that be because they hadn't been advised that the US would mount
> an operation on that day!!, you can't just expect everyone to be ready
> to jump right on into a firefight without getting some kind of ROE and
> authority from their superiors.

Not real bright, are you? You trot out a source that allegedly supports your
warped construct, and it turns out you can't even properly get the very
basics of the *source* right. Hint--what *USMC* unit was involved in that
Mogadishu raid that is the subject of your source? You need to go back and
read that book again--most of it obviously passed through your cranial
cavity without your accurately decyphering its meaning.

> > >
> > > The Spanish have stated quite plainly that a UN run force would be
> > > acceptable, the alternative forces (IE those countries that want to
> > > help the US get out of a bad situation) would patrol on day one with
> > > Iraqi's police, then use a graduated response with the Iraqi police
> > > being able to call in _reasonable_ force if required, and a whole lot
> > > of force when necessary.
> >
> > A-hem. And how are you getting the "alternative force" there in that
> > timeframe? Without US support,

> Why without US support?, you get the 'alternatives' there, setup and
> supplied, and ready to go then the UN takes over and day one starts!,
> don't expect to drop everything and say theres the mess go clean it
> up.

Oh, so now you are postulating a "Day One", to be followed by another... Day
One? Or is this just another example, like your later, "Well, we'll keep the
US-ians around to handle the REAL problems while we have a few thousand of
(undetermined providing nations' troops) serve as window dressing--but other
than that the US will cede control and be tucked away quietly in its bases,
out of sight, out of mind!" idea, of how you can use the US forces, without
actually using the US forces? Doublespeak much? Either you have the US as a
player, as you are now indicating, or you don't, as you originally
postulated--which is it?


> > Oh! So now it is "unless absolutely necessary", not your previous, "Get
the
> > hell out of Dodge before sundown, pardner!"? So what you are really
> > proposing is a token parade ground force, with the US remaining there to
> > handle the things when "absolutely necessary"? Flip-flop much?
>
> You can describe it how you like if it diffuses the situation,
> remember its your mess, the rest of the world may help you or not
> theres no guarentees they would want to get involved in such a
> debarkle.

Well, there we agree--if anyone was so dull as to actually implement your
"plan", then it would be a "debarkle" (I guess).

>
> > > No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear up
> > > the mess you created.
> >
> > No, you said we had to pull back on "Day One", quite specifically in
fact.
> > Now you make it sound as if you want us there to do the heavy hitting,
but
> > we should "keep off the grass, and stay in the back of the bus"
otherwise,
> > huh? You ARE rather rabid with your anti-Americanism, aren't you?
>
> It seems the Iraqi's are the ones you should be worry about being
> anti-american, I personally am not anti-american, then again I'm not
> pro-american.
> do you believe such a state can exist??.

I find your protestations against being labled anti-American a bit weak,
given the evidence of your repeated posts against myriad things USian, and
*none* pro-USian...

> >
> > >
> > > No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have been
> > > absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?,
> >
> > Who said they don't?

> That poll you keep referring to 'look at who they don't want running
> the Iraqi gov', Oh surprise surprise it the guy who lived in the US
> for the last decade or two, We can argue the poll till doomsday comes,
> the figures mean little in themselves from such a small sample.

So they don't like Chalabi--so what? They have the CPA until they can
construct their own new final government, they are overwhelmingly happy with
their current local government, and they decidedly want the coalition to
remain in the country for the time being. I suspect the reason you don't
like that poll is because it does not square with your own sermonizing of
what the Iraqis themselves *really* want, which begs the question of when
you were annointed and gifted with the clairvoyance necessary for you to
repeatedly tell us their desires.

>
> > You have zero military experience?
> Combat experience is zero, but have worked with them in several areas.

Uhmm--the guy driving the Roach Coach (mobile snack stand) around FT Knox
could claim he "worked with" those of us who were actually pulling duty.
Sorry, no points awarded for that claim. So what we have in you is a guy who
claims that he knows the "strategy and tactics" of the situation in Iraq
better than those who *do* wear the uniforms, or the SecDef, etc., yet who
has zip/nada/zilch in terms of military experience or training. That
figures.

>
> >That would be my guess, based upon your
> > ridiculous assertion that having bad guys in your security units is
better
> > than not having them there...

> Have you ever heard of keep your friends close and your enemies
> closer, while there in a structure that is commanded by your side you
> have a chance of controlling elements, as opposed to the present
> situation.

Have you ever heard of OPSEC? Or the necessity of building a credible
reputation if you are going to avoid unnecessary bloodshed? Or to put it in
the most basic terms, how willing would YOU be to put yourself into a
situation where you are engaging an insurgent threat and then find that the
guys designated to provide covering fire for your rush to the objective are
part-and-parcel of the same guys shooting back at you? Only an IDIOT would
claim that placing known hostiles into your own security force would be a
"wise" move.

> > > You don't need tens of thousands, you need peacekeepers, preferably
> > > muslims, preferably sunni's or shia who will patrol areas where the US
> > > presence is not tolerated by the locals (you know! the ones you freed
> > > from Saddams oppression), you keep the US well out of sight in those
> > > areas unless called for, its about diffusing the situation!!!.
> >
> > Uhmmm--you do need tens of thousands. Take a gander at what is on the
ground
> > now--you know, that coalition force that the vast majority of Iraqis
want to
> > see remain in-place until such time as their own forces can handle
security?
> > Which would indicate that the only thing needing defusing is the current
> > radical minority and their terrorist brethren. Stop making this out to
be a
> > case of the majority of the Iraqis wanting us out NOW--that just is not
> > supported by the reputable poll results. BTW, do you have ANY supporting
> > evidence to back up YOUR claims? Any at all?.
>
> 59.2% want the US out by june 30th or earlier from that poll...

Bull****. You are twisting the numbers quite hard to get that kind of warped
result. Go back and READ the questions posed. A whopping 15% said the wanted
the coalition out immediately. Stop your quibbling.


> > > >> The last problem is to pursuade the rest of the world to come in
and
> > > >> risk their lives for what is undoubtly one of the worst US
inspired
> > > >> cock-ups,
> > > >
> > > >Have you ever expressed any opinion favorable of the US in any form
or
> > > >fashion? I don't recall it if you ever did...
> > >
> > > I don't recall you ever saying the US has cocked right up with Iraq, I
> > > happen to agree with (IIRC) Abdul Nasser who said "The Americans dont
> > > make simple mistakes, they make big huge complicated ones, which leave
> > > the rest of us scratching our heads wondering if we have possible
> > > missed something"
> >
> > Answer the question--have you expressed any opinion favorable of the US?
> > Ever?
>
> yes I have, how about the US has a brillient military capability
> easily a magatude better than any one else, now your turn! is Iraq a
> cockup?.

Wait a sec. Please provide the cite--it is not that I don't trust
you...well, yes, it is. I'd be very curious as to the nature of that
comment, and what followed it after your inevitable "but...".

No, Iraq is not whatever you described it as above. It ain't neat, it ain't
pretty--but that is the nature of conflict, and of establishing a new nation
to replace the old.

> > > I'm Biased because I think the US has made a tremendous error of
> > > judgement!!!.
> >
> > No, you are biased because you demonstrate a decidedly anti-American
> > propensity in all discussions, or at least those that I have watched you
> > wade into of late. Still awaiting those examples of your saying
*anything*
> > good about the US...
>
> What do you want me to say??, go on i'm interested?.
> You have the best politicians money can buy perhaps:-)

I want an example of your providing any kind of pro-US statement in this
forum, preferably irelated to the modern era. You have worked very hard to
try and completely trash the F/A-22, you keep tossing jabs at the JSF/F-35,
you hammer us on Iraq...I went back about three years on Google and did not
find any pro-US comments to speak of, but plenty of anti-s. Face it,
John--look in a mirror and tell yourself, "To be honest, I don't like the
US, or anything US-ian." Face your demons, man.

>
> > > So as an unbiased observer of the situation in Iraq whats its
> > > successes???
> >
> > I am not unbiased--I just admit it, unlike you.
>
>
> You avoided the question again... what are its successes?.

Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. State ordered mass executions are no
longer in vogue. Last i heard the power and water distribution systems had
reached or exceeded the pre-conflict levels. That ridiculous statue of
Hussein being toppled in Baghdad. The succesful defeat of the Iraqi forces
and ouster of the ruling party using forces that many naysayers said were
"inadequate" to move onto and through Baghdad. And best of all, the Iraqis
themselves feel they are better off today than a year ago before we went in,
and they are optimistic about the future. You need more?

Brooks

[John Cook]

>> > > The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
>> > > Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral decisive
>> > > force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US friendly
>> > > 'version' of events.
>> >
>> > LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they
>"rescued"?
>> > You are letting your animosity towards all things US-ian gobber up your
>> > tenuous grasp of the real facts. And while you are rereading Bowden's
>book,
>> > note how much effort was required in order to get the Malays and Pakis
>> > moving that day.
>
>> Would that be because they hadn't been advised that the US would mount
>> an operation on that day!!, you can't just expect everyone to be ready
>> to jump right on into a firefight without getting some kind of ROE and
>> authority from their superiors.
>
>Not real bright, are you? You trot out a source that allegedly supports your
>warped construct, and it turns out you can't even properly get the very
>basics of the *source* right. Hint--what *USMC* unit was involved in that

Ah I think I see what your getting at the 'Marines' I Mentioned from
Memory were 'Rangers' and 'Delta force' that were rescued - at least I
think that's what you are on about?.

>Mogadishu raid that is the subject of your source? You need to go back and
>read that book again--most of it obviously passed through your cranial
>cavity without your accurately decyphering its meaning.

>Oh, so now you are postulating a "Day One", to be followed by another... Day
>One? Or is this just another example, like your later, "Well, we'll keep the
>US-ians around to handle the REAL problems while we have a few thousand of
>(undetermined providing nations' troops) serve as window dressing--but other
>than that the US will cede control and be tucked away quietly in its bases,
>out of sight, out of mind!" idea, of how you can use the US forces, without
>actually using the US forces? Doublespeak much? Either you have the US as a
>player, as you are now indicating, or you don't, as you originally
>postulated--which is it?

You use them sparingly, in conjunction with foreign peacekeepers and
local police, remember were trying to diffuse a difficult situation
created by a gung ho attitude, that's not easy to dispel, if at all
possible.

>> > > No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear up
>> > > the mess you created.
>> >
>> > No, you said we had to pull back on "Day One", quite specifically in
>fact.
>> > Now you make it sound as if you want us there to do the heavy hitting,
>but
>> > we should "keep off the grass, and stay in the back of the bus"
>otherwise,
>> > huh? You ARE rather rabid with your anti-Americanism, aren't you?
>>
>> It seems the Iraqi's are the ones you should be worry about being
>> anti-american, I personally am not anti-american, then again I'm not
>> pro-american.
>> do you believe such a state can exist??.
>
>I find your protestations against being labled anti-American a bit weak,
>given the evidence of your repeated posts against myriad things USian, and
>*none* pro-USian...

How does that affect the situation in Iraq?, its still a big cock-up

>> >
>> > >
>> > > No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have been
>> > > absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?,
>> >
>> > Who said they don't?
>
>> That poll you keep referring to 'look at who they don't want running
>> the Iraqi gov', Oh surprise surprise it the guy who lived in the US
>> for the last decade or two, We can argue the poll till doomsday comes,
>> the figures mean little in themselves from such a small sample.
>
>So they don't like Chalabi--so what?


So what!!!, you stick someone they don't like in and pretty soon they
will be out and someone you don't like will be in, blimey you are
not facing reality are you, there not interested in imported Iraqi's.

>They have the CPA until they can
>construct their own new final government, they are overwhelmingly happy with
>their current local government, and they decidedly want the coalition to
>remain in the country for the time being. I suspect the reason you don't
>like that poll is because it does not square with your own sermonizing of
>what the Iraqis themselves *really* want, which begs the question of when
>you were annointed and gifted with the clairvoyance necessary for you to
>repeatedly tell us their desires.


>> > You have zero military experience?
>> Combat experience is zero, but have worked with them in several areas.
>
>Uhmm--the guy driving the Roach Coach (mobile snack stand) around FT Knox
>could claim he "worked with" those of us who were actually pulling duty.
I used to make bits for missiles systems and elsewhere on worked on
communications, beyond that I can't say.
>Sorry, no points awarded for that claim. So what we have in you is a guy who
>claims that he knows the "strategy and tactics" of the situation in Iraq
>better than those who *do* wear the uniforms, or the SecDef, etc., yet who
>has zip/nada/zilch in terms of military experience or training. That
>figures.
OK I'm fed up with this thread - Check out someone who you can
identify with here:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3646947.stm
Quote"Now, the two serving generals have raised questions about the
wisdom of excluding Baath party officials from the post-war
administration"
Now what was it you were saying about ridiculous assertions!!, I said
excluding the old mob was a big mistake, two US generals (who I
freely admit have an Infinitely better handle on the situation in
Iraq than you or I, "seem to share the view that the policy of
casting senior Iraqi officers aside was a mistake."

"British generals, too, have been speaking out".

"Yesterday, the head of the British Army - Gen Sir Mike Jackson - told
the House of Commons Defence Committee it was a fact that the British
approach to post-conflict situations was doctrinally different to that
of the US".

"There has been some criticism of US tactics from British, Polish and
other commanders."

But there all Anti American aren't they, perhaps you wish to share
your thoughts as to why these two US generals are wrong, as to Why
the British are wrong, and the polish too..

>> >That would be my guess, based upon your
>> > ridiculous assertion that having bad guys in your security units is
>better than not having them there...

Well I have two US generals and a couple of other nations who agree
with me...Or do you agree with "the famous French statesman, Georges
Clemenceau, who said that "war is too important to be left to the
generals". Funny I thought you didn't agree with the French.


>Have you ever heard of OPSEC? Or the necessity of building a credible
>reputation if you are going to avoid unnecessary bloodshed?
>Or to put it in
>the most basic terms, how willing would YOU be to put yourself into a
>situation where you are engaging an insurgent threat and then find that the
>guys designated to provide covering fire for your rush to the objective are
>part-and-parcel of the same guys shooting back at you? Only an IDIOT would
>claim that placing known hostiles into your own security force would be a
>"wise" move.

"23/6/2003 U.S. announces formation of new Iraqi army
RAMADI, Iraq (AP) — U.S.-led civil administrators announced the
creation of a new Iraqi army Monday, hoping to contain anger among
soldiers jobless since Saddam Hussein's military was disbanded and to
curb a rash of anti-U.S. attacks."

Or perhaps

"I'm not that comfortable in the new army," said Nawar Mahmood, 23,
who said he was a member of the Kurdish pesh merga militia and had
been reassigned to the new Iraqi army. "I spent 13 years in the pesh
merga fighting the Baathists, and now there are many Baathists in the
new army."



Now Mr Brook every single Iraqi soldier is a known hostile, they were
fighting against the US led coalition.. remember?, the new Iraqi Army
was formed to contain anger from the old soldiers and curb attacks
also!!, Ohh they seem to be agreeing with me...remember what I said
:-

"Well if Mr Rumsfield is correct there are large numbers of republican
guard roaming around attacking US forces in felluja, having them in
there old units would have made tracking them a lot easier, rather
than having several thousand ex soldiers milling around the town.,"

You have had a severe rant about known hostiles, unfortunately the
security measure of asking " are you a hostile?" is easily defeated by
answering "no"



>> 59.2% want the US out by june 30th or earlier from that poll...
>
>Bull****. You are twisting the numbers quite hard to get that kind of warped
>result. Go back and READ the questions posed. A whopping 15% said the wanted
>the coalition out immediately. Stop your quibbling.

Q26 50.9% of those who were aware of the coalition oppose their
presence..

yet in another question when asked:-
Q28 - For each of the following, please tell me whether you think it
would be very effective, somewhat effective, not very effective or not
at all effective in improving security.

half of those that expressed an opinion thought that the Immediate
departure of coalition forces would be effective.

You have a wide disparity right there... between your 15% and 50 %,
I'll be kind to you - perhaps it was how it was worded.

>> >
>> > Answer the question--have you expressed any opinion favorable of the US?
>> > Ever?
>>
>> yes I have, how about the US has a brillient military capability
>> easily a magatude better than any one else, now your turn! is Iraq a
>> cockup?.
>
>Wait a sec. Please provide the cite--


Its above, here I'll do it again, I reckon Denon USA make the best
Audio receivers/amps. especially in my price range.

Oh and the Swiss do make a good army knife!..

Now I wish to make a point, Would members of all the other countries
please refrain from asking me to endorse their Country and/or
products, I know your not all as paranoid as some, but I simply cannot
cope with 200 plus endorsements, its not that I'm anti (insert your
nation here) its just I don't really care enough to mention all the
good things you've achieved throughout history, nor do I have the time
to type all those wonderful things.

>
>> > > I'm Biased because I think the US has made a tremendous error of
>> > > judgement!!!.
>> >
>> > No, you are biased because you demonstrate a decidedly anti-American
>> > propensity in all discussions, or at least those that I have watched you
>> > wade into of late. Still awaiting those examples of your saying
>*anything*
>> > good about the US...

Tell you what - you provide a cite about anything good you've said
about Denmark, or the UN.


>>
>> What do you want me to say??, go on i'm interested?.
>> You have the best politicians money can buy perhaps:-)
>
>I want an example of your providing any kind of pro-US statement in this
>forum, preferably irelated to the modern era. You have worked very hard to
>try and completely trash the F/A-22, you keep tossing jabs at the JSF/F-35,
>you hammer us on Iraq...I went back about three years on Google and did not
>find any pro-US comments to speak of, but plenty of anti-s. Face it,
>John--look in a mirror and tell yourself, "To be honest, I don't like the
>US, or anything US-ian." Face your demons, man.
On 26-2-2004

"BVR the JSF should be good,but WVR it would suffer if it didn't
have
an high off boresite missle and an helmet to cue the missile.

It may lack in areas of the flight envelope that is useful for post
missile launch maneauvre to deny the opposition a shot, but its
stealth should make up for it.


That's my take on it, it all depends on how good the avionics are!
consider the price, lots of stuff may get left off due to weight and
costs..."

I have friends and relo's over there, You seem to have the "you're
either with us or against us" attitude, Why can't I criticise without
being labeled anti US.

>> You avoided the question again... what are its successes?.
>
>Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.

This is true!!, and is a good example!!, blimey I knew you could do
it.

>State ordered mass executions are no
>longer in vogue.

But unfortunately more civilians are dying from 'collateral damage I
think the total deaths are over 10,000 now.


>Last i heard the power and water distribution systems had
>reached or exceeded the pre-conflict levels.

Which pre conflict, the first one or the subsequent?
> That ridiculous statue of
>Hussein being toppled in Baghdad.
Yes and being draped in the stars and strips too, that brought a tear
to my eye.

>The succesful defeat of the Iraqi forces
>and ouster of the ruling party using forces that many naysayers said were
>"inadequate" to move onto and through Baghdad.


>And best of all, the Iraqis
>themselves feel they are better off today than a year ago before we went in,
>and they are optimistic about the future. You need more?



>Brooks
>

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Paul J. Adam]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> Have you ever heard of OPSEC? Or the necessity of building a credible
> reputation if you are going to avoid unnecessary bloodshed? Or to put it
in
> the most basic terms, how willing would YOU be to put yourself into a
> situation where you are engaging an insurgent threat and then find that
the
> guys designated to provide covering fire for your rush to the objective
are
> part-and-parcel of the same guys shooting back at you? Only an IDIOT would
> claim that placing known hostiles into your own security force would be a
> "wise" move.

You're very hard on your political and military leadership, Kevin.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/04/23/ixportaltop.html

+++++
Half Iraq's forces 'are traitors or deserters', by Toby Harnden in Baghdad
(Filed: 23/04/2004)

One in 10 members of Iraq's new security forces is actively helping
insurgents while 40 per cent have deserted, according to an American
general.

Major Gen Martin Dempsey, commander of the US army's 1st Armoured Division
in Baghdad, issued the bleakest coalition assessment yet of Iraqi security
capabilities.

Are the new Iraqi security forces prepared to face real danger?
He said that during recent uprisings "about 50 per cent of the security
forces that we've built over the past year stood tall and stood firm".
He added: "About 40 per cent walked off the job because they were
intimidated and about 10 per cent actually worked against us."
<snip>
Gen John Abizaid, the senior US commander in the Middle East, has
acknowledged that inadequate screening of Iraqi security force recruits has
been a key failure in American training. Gen Dempsey said Iraqi forces had
been riddled with "infiltrators".
+++++

--
Paul J. Adam

[John Cook]

See also
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=100246968&p=yxxz47664&n=100247763

In a major change of strategy, the US is planning to offer government
jobs in Iraq to former senior officers of Saddam Hussein’s military
and the ousted Baath Party.

Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Brett]

"John Cook" > wrote:
> See also
> http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=100246968&p=yxxz47664&n=100247763
>
> In a major change of strategy, the US is planning to offer government
> jobs in Iraq to former senior officers of Saddam Hussein's military
> and the ousted Baath Party.

In the 1920's a revolt instigated by Shia clerics against the British had a
significant and long lasting effect...

[Tuollaf43]

"Jarg" > wrote in message >...
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Jarg" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
> > > > or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
> > > > persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.
> > >
> > > Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
> > > decisions including eligible candidates in elections.
> >
> > There are always limits to a pure democracy - for instance the
> > judiciary or a constitutional head of state in most west minister type
> > democracies. Not that I am arguing that the current state in the
> > evolution of the Iranian democratic state is examplary, but it is
> > pretty good progress overall compared to the American supported ideal
> > - the Shah Monarchy.
> >
>
>
> I see little democracy in Iran, certainly no more than occured under the
> Shah.

I will tell you how much democracy there was under the Shah: Zero.

> How many of the candidates were disallowed by the mullahs in the last
> elections?

You tell me.

>
>
> > I never said that Iran was a democracy in the image of the US - but it
> > is a functioning and vibrant democracy none the less, and more
> > importantly evolving towards a better state, with all the ups and
> > downs in its journey. Before comparing it to Swiss, UK or US model
> > please remember that they just had a bloody revolution and a bloodier
> > war and not few hundred years of fairly peaceful and economically
> > productive years in which to evolve.
> >
> > And if you think that it is way too authoritarian then just look at
> > the manner in which in which a single terrorist attack has undermined
> > the civil liberties in the US and how that nation has taken the first
> > tentative steps towards the establishment of a police state.
>
>
> What an absurd idea. Do you live in the US?

About four months in the year.

>
>
> Iran has
> > had to deal with worse - including now the damocles sword of threat of
> > invasion for future possible transgressions.
> > > Which isn't to say
> > > the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does,
> but
> > > only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
> > > exposed to indoctrination.
> >
> > Exactly the same could be said, for instance, of the US. Most of its
> > citizens are poorly educated about Iraq or Iran and are constantly
> > exposed to indoctrination by the media, even the reviled US 'liberal'
> > media would be far right of center in most countries.
> >
>
>
> Most Americans are far better educated than the average Iranian with the
> added benefit that they have a free press as a source of information. The
> US media is much more varied than you allow.
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
> > > > political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hard to say, but I doubt this is true.
> >
> > Standing external threat, the axis of evil rhetoric, threats and talk
> > of invasions, expressed desire to overthrow the current regime make
> > the those in control justifiably paranoid and weakens the hands of the
> > reformers. This is obvious.
> >
> > > The Iranian government isn't just
> > > reacting to US policy.
> >
> > Ofcourse not. That would ascribe to the US for more influence than it
> > enjoys; but it is certainly a major (or THE major) factor in the
> > Iranian calculations.
> >
> > > It has its own agenda that clashes sharply with the
> > > interests
> >
> > Good for them. Which country does not have its own agenda? I dont see
> > any particular reason that Iran should apologitic about a 'Iran first'
> > agenda. And another way to put it would be that Western interests
> > clash sharply with persian interests. As far as I know Iran is not
> > publicly planning and equipping for global domination or a New Iranian
> > Century. No Iranian carrier battle groups conduct freedom of
> > navigation excercises off Boston Harbour, occasionally shooting down
> > airliners. There is no funding for overthrowing the Bush regime and
> > bringing 'true' democracy to America.
> >
>
>
> Don't try to pretend there is some equivalence between US and Iran.

Hardly. They are both unique in both their good and their evil.

> Iran
> is a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy which has largely had a negative
> influence in the world.

But US has also had a larger negative influence on the world (along
with a larger share of the positive influence due to its large size
and economy).

> The US is recognized as the leader of the
> democratic world

Recognised? By Whom?

I live in a democratic country and if you asked the joe on the street
he would laugh at you.

> and a source of inspiration for many freedom loving people.

Oh, yes - I agree. But the US is also the anti-christ personified for
other freedom loving people.

> As for the presence of US force, they serve to help protect other nations in
> the region from Iran.

Get a grip. The American forces are there for only one reason - to
protect their own strategic interests, which since the end of the cold
war are largely limited to securing oil security - by hook or crook.

> It's hard to imagine that any US sponsored change of
> government in Iran wouldn't be an improvement.

One merely has to look at the improvements in Afghanistan and Iraq to
counter your assertion. BTW many believe that _any_ change in the
current US regime (Iran sponsored or not) will be an improvement.

>
>
> > > of the civilized world.
> >
> > This is unadulterated hubris.
> >
>
>
> Not at all. Examples of uncivilized behavior are abundant, for example
> public beatings, sponsorship of terrorists, hostage taking, etc.

LOL. I suppose they are also guilty of not using toilet paper and
forks or burping loudly.

Dear me! If you really came down to it do you realise how much of that
could be pinned on america too? Subverting democracy, aggressive war,
collective punishment etc are not the signs of civilized behaviour
either.

>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
> > > > wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
> > > > in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
> > > > been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I thought you said they have a democracy! The Shah was by far the most
> > > progressive government Iran has had, which isn't saying much.

This is so silly.

> >
> > Wow! the US installed Shah monarchy with its savak terror was an
> > improvement over the Mossadegh government?
> >
>
>
> Indeed it was. Mossadegh's only notable (and foolish) idea was the
> attempted nationalization of British assets.

Foolish? I suppose he should have let Britain control his nation's
most precious asset.

> He demostrated clear
> tendancies towards demogogary.

You mean like most of the current world leaders?

> Many of his peers believed he aspired to
> dictatorship.

Hearsay and Conjecture.

> Whereas the Shah made a concerted effort to drag Iran into
> the modern world, including efforts at increasing literacy, land reform and
> voting rights for women.

But that does not mean that he was repressive, bloody minded dictator
at the same time.

> Incidentally, repression under the Islamic
> government is well documented

I dont doubt that.

> and much worse than it ever was under the Shah
> and the "savak terror".

Perhaps. I am not aware of any metric that compares the two.

>
>
> > And look at the state of democracy in Iran, which broke its US
> > shackles with those still under western influence - KSA et al.
> >
> > > The economy
> > > of Iran improved dramatically under the Shah and collapsed when he was
> > > overthrown.
> >
> > A rise and decline in which the US had a prominient part to play.
> >
>
>
> The current Iranian government has only itself is to blame, including its
> poor economic policies - centralized planning, lack of diversification, and
> state ownership of key industries for example - and the isolation resulting
> from efforts to spread Islamic revolution.

You think a bloody revolution, embargo and a decade long bloody war
had nothing to do with it? There goes your credibility.

>
>
> Part of that was Saddams doing, but mostly it is the result of
> > > foolish governement political and economic policies.
> >
> > Politically it was a time for terror and counter-terror which any way
> > you look at it sucks. But what exactly were the foolish economic
> > policies and how could they have done it different in a state
> > undergoing a historical revolution? The economy always goes down the
> > drain during such times.
> >
> > >
> > > > Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
> > > > credible.
> > >
> > > I believe the polls were taken by independent news organizations.
> >
> > Independent only in matter of speaking. US media is neither
> > disinterested nor completely unbaised or objective; it takes its
> > patriotic duty pretty seriously. What is acceptable and what
> > displeases the USG is clearly and publicly articulated and largely its
> > preferences are adhered to by US media companies. How much value would
> > you ascribe to a poll taken by Al-jazeera or by Fox? Being independent
> > is a prequiste but certainly not sufficient for being objective.
> >
> > >
>
>
> It doesn't follow that an organizations ideoliogical biases would show in
> the polls it takes.

And there is a pretty good chance that they would too. Hence the
skepticism.

> In any case the polls being discussed are not by any
> given organization but by many.

How many are from those not from the US or its puppet states?

>
> Jarg

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Have you ever heard of OPSEC? Or the necessity of building a credible
> > reputation if you are going to avoid unnecessary bloodshed? Or to put it
> in
> > the most basic terms, how willing would YOU be to put yourself into a
> > situation where you are engaging an insurgent threat and then find that
> the
> > guys designated to provide covering fire for your rush to the objective
> are
> > part-and-parcel of the same guys shooting back at you? Only an IDIOT
would
> > claim that placing known hostiles into your own security force would be
a
> > "wise" move.
>
> You're very hard on your political and military leadership, Kevin.

No, Paul, but in your usual leap to jump on the nearest "US is Evillll in
Iraq..." bandwagon you have missed the obvious, namely that bit about
placing "known hostiles" in the security force. If you buy into that little
posit of Cook's, then I have obviously misjudged your military knowledge.
And BTW--merely having been a member of either the Iraqi Army or even the
IRGC does not necessarilly make one a "known hostile", OK?

Brooks

>
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/04/23/ixportaltop.html
>
> +++++
> Half Iraq's forces 'are traitors or deserters', by Toby Harnden in Baghdad
> (Filed: 23/04/2004)
>
> One in 10 members of Iraq's new security forces is actively helping
> insurgents while 40 per cent have deserted, according to an American
> general.
>
> Major Gen Martin Dempsey, commander of the US army's 1st Armoured Division
> in Baghdad, issued the bleakest coalition assessment yet of Iraqi security
> capabilities.
>
> Are the new Iraqi security forces prepared to face real danger?
> He said that during recent uprisings "about 50 per cent of the security
> forces that we've built over the past year stood tall and stood firm".
> He added: "About 40 per cent walked off the job because they were
> intimidated and about 10 per cent actually worked against us."
> <snip>
> Gen John Abizaid, the senior US commander in the Middle East, has
> acknowledged that inadequate screening of Iraqi security force recruits
has
> been a key failure in American training. Gen Dempsey said Iraqi forces had
> been riddled with "infiltrators".
> +++++
>
> --
> Paul J. Adam
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> > > The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
> >> > > Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral
decisive
> >> > > force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US
friendly
> >> > > 'version' of events.
> >> >
> >> > LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they
> >"rescued"?
> >> > You are letting your animosity towards all things US-ian gobber up
your
> >> > tenuous grasp of the real facts. And while you are rereading Bowden's
> >book,
> >> > note how much effort was required in order to get the Malays and
Pakis
> >> > moving that day.
> >
> >> Would that be because they hadn't been advised that the US would mount
> >> an operation on that day!!, you can't just expect everyone to be ready
> >> to jump right on into a firefight without getting some kind of ROE and
> >> authority from their superiors.
> >
> >Not real bright, are you? You trot out a source that allegedly supports
your
> >warped construct, and it turns out you can't even properly get the very
> >basics of the *source* right. Hint--what *USMC* unit was involved in that
>
> Ah I think I see what your getting at the 'Marines' I Mentioned from
> Memory were 'Rangers' and 'Delta force' that were rescued - at least I
> think that's what you are on about?.

Are the Rangers and Delta guys Marines? You can't even get your basic facts
right, amigo.

>
> >Mogadishu raid that is the subject of your source? You need to go back
and
> >read that book again--most of it obviously passed through your cranial
> >cavity without your accurately decyphering its meaning.
>
> >Oh, so now you are postulating a "Day One", to be followed by another...
Day
> >One? Or is this just another example, like your later, "Well, we'll keep
the
> >US-ians around to handle the REAL problems while we have a few thousand
of
> >(undetermined providing nations' troops) serve as window dressing--but
other
> >than that the US will cede control and be tucked away quietly in its
bases,
> >out of sight, out of mind!" idea, of how you can use the US forces,
without
> >actually using the US forces? Doublespeak much? Either you have the US as
a
> >player, as you are now indicating, or you don't, as you originally
> >postulated--which is it?
>
> You use them sparingly, in conjunction with foreign peacekeepers and
> local police, remember were trying to diffuse a difficult situation
> created by a gung ho attitude, that's not easy to dispel, if at all
> possible.

What "gung ho" attitude? Any specific cites to support that? And it is nice
to know that you have now backed away from your original plan to discard the
US forces on "Day One"...

>
> >> > > No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear
up
> >> > > the mess you created.
> >> >
> >> > No, you said we had to pull back on "Day One", quite specifically in
> >fact.
> >> > Now you make it sound as if you want us there to do the heavy
hitting,
> >but
> >> > we should "keep off the grass, and stay in the back of the bus"
> >otherwise,
> >> > huh? You ARE rather rabid with your anti-Americanism, aren't you?
> >>
> >> It seems the Iraqi's are the ones you should be worry about being
> >> anti-american, I personally am not anti-american, then again I'm not
> >> pro-american.
> >> do you believe such a state can exist??.
> >
> >I find your protestations against being labled anti-American a bit weak,
> >given the evidence of your repeated posts against myriad things USian,
and
> >*none* pro-USian...
>
> How does that affect the situation in Iraq?, its still a big cock-up

I note that for a change you don't deny your wide-ranging anti-US bias;
maybe you are finally beginning to come to terms with your own prejudices?

>
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have
been
> >> > > absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?,
> >> >
> >> > Who said they don't?
> >
> >> That poll you keep referring to 'look at who they don't want running
> >> the Iraqi gov', Oh surprise surprise it the guy who lived in the US
> >> for the last decade or two, We can argue the poll till doomsday comes,
> >> the figures mean little in themselves from such a small sample.
> >
> >So they don't like Chalabi--so what?
>
>
> So what!!!, you stick someone they don't like in and pretty soon they
> will be out and someone you don't like will be in, blimey you are
> not facing reality are you, there not interested in imported Iraqi's.

Their governing council will provide the initial interim leadership,
followed by a government of their own choosing. Oddly enough, the question
of national leadership ranked low among the polled Iraqis concerns---seems
you are more worked up over it than they are.

>
> >They have the CPA until they can
> >construct their own new final government, they are overwhelmingly happy
with
> >their current local government, and they decidedly want the coalition to
> >remain in the country for the time being. I suspect the reason you don't
> >like that poll is because it does not square with your own sermonizing of
> >what the Iraqis themselves *really* want, which begs the question of when
> >you were annointed and gifted with the clairvoyance necessary for you to
> >repeatedly tell us their desires.
>
>
> >> > You have zero military experience?
> >> Combat experience is zero, but have worked with them in several areas.
> >
> >Uhmm--the guy driving the Roach Coach (mobile snack stand) around FT Knox
> >could claim he "worked with" those of us who were actually pulling duty.
> I used to make bits for missiles systems and elsewhere on worked on
> communications, beyond that I can't say.

Well, you moved beyond that very limited range of expertise a long while
back.

> >Sorry, no points awarded for that claim. So what we have in you is a guy
who
> >claims that he knows the "strategy and tactics" of the situation in Iraq
> >better than those who *do* wear the uniforms, or the SecDef, etc., yet
who
> >has zip/nada/zilch in terms of military experience or training. That
> >figures.

> OK I'm fed up with this thread - Check out someone who you can
> identify with here:-

Heck, I was fed up by the time I got to the last post, but it was so darned
fun pointing out that your personal critique of the "strategy and tactics"
(and where do you lump in operational art, oh-annointed-one?) was based upon
zilch/zero/nada experience or knowledge of things military, not to mention
reminding you of your continual and rabid anti-US bias in all things,
commercial and governmental, that I figured it would be worth staying
engaged.


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3646947.stm
> Quote"Now, the two serving generals have raised questions about the
> wisdom of excluding Baath party officials from the post-war
> administration"
> Now what was it you were saying about ridiculous assertions!!, I said
> excluding the old mob was a big mistake, two US generals (who I
> freely admit have an Infinitely better handle on the situation in
> Iraq than you or I, "seem to share the view that the policy of
> casting senior Iraqi officers aside was a mistake."

So you equate being a member of the Baath Party as being de facto proof that
they are known hostiles? Quite a leap you are making there.

>
> "British generals, too, have been speaking out".
>
> "Yesterday, the head of the British Army - Gen Sir Mike Jackson - told
> the House of Commons Defence Committee it was a fact that the British
> approach to post-conflict situations was doctrinally different to that
> of the US".
>
> "There has been some criticism of US tactics from British, Polish and
> other commanders."

LOL! There is *always* criticism--even internally, within US forces, no
doubt. Par for the course. So what? My favorite Patton quote went something
like, "If everyone is in agreement, then someone is not thinking."

>
> But there all Anti American aren't they, perhaps you wish to share
> your thoughts as to why these two US generals are wrong, as to Why
> the British are wrong, and the polish too..

No, YOU are anti-American, by dint of your past tirades; they just disagree.
Even you should be able to see the difference.

>
> >> >That would be my guess, based upon your
> >> > ridiculous assertion that having bad guys in your security units is
> >better than not having them there...
>
> Well I have two US generals and a couple of other nations who agree
> with me...Or do you agree with "the famous French statesman, Georges
> Clemenceau, who said that "war is too important to be left to the
> generals". Funny I thought you didn't agree with the French.

No, you don't. You indicated we should be putting known hostiles into the
forces--not the same thing.

>
>
> >Have you ever heard of OPSEC? Or the necessity of building a credible
> >reputation if you are going to avoid unnecessary bloodshed?
> >Or to put it in
> >the most basic terms, how willing would YOU be to put yourself into a
> >situation where you are engaging an insurgent threat and then find that
the
> >guys designated to provide covering fire for your rush to the objective
are
> >part-and-parcel of the same guys shooting back at you? Only an IDIOT
would
> >claim that placing known hostiles into your own security force would be a
> >"wise" move.
>
> "23/6/2003 U.S. announces formation of new Iraqi army
> RAMADI, Iraq (AP) - U.S.-led civil administrators announced the
> creation of a new Iraqi army Monday, hoping to contain anger among
> soldiers jobless since Saddam Hussein's military was disbanded and to
> curb a rash of anti-U.S. attacks."
>
> Or perhaps
>
> "I'm not that comfortable in the new army," said Nawar Mahmood, 23,
> who said he was a member of the Kurdish pesh merga militia and had
> been reassigned to the new Iraqi army. "I spent 13 years in the pesh
> merga fighting the Baathists, and now there are many Baathists in the
> new army."
>
>
>
> Now Mr Brook every single Iraqi soldier is a known hostile,

No, they are not, not after the initial conflict was resolved and Hussein
removed from power. By your view, Germany would have been left with NO
leadership after the war at ANY level had we taken that complete approach to
defining "hostiles". As would have Japan.

Out of time to debate this with you further at this point. Go back to your
"Typhoon is Great, and All US Aircraft are Turkeys" website and general
bashing of us Yanks, John--it was more entertaining than this misguided
foray of yours into "strategy and tactics" (neither of which you ever
specifically critiqued...).

Brooks

[Paul J. Adam]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You're very hard on your political and military leadership, Kevin.
>
> No, Paul,

Yes, Kevin.

Did some outside body force those men on the US-led administration? You
chose them, trained them, equipped them, at *some* point you end up
responsible for their performance or lack thereof.

Paranoia about "known hostiles" aside (quoted from *your military*, I didn't
make that up) their performance has certainly been less than stellar to
date.

Or, I suppose, you can call the Daily Telegraph a Leftist liberal
anti-American mouthpiece, which would be funny.

--
Paul J. Adam

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > You're very hard on your political and military leadership, Kevin.
> >
> > No, Paul,
>
> Yes, Kevin.

No, Paul--you need to read the remainder of what I wrote instead of snipping
it away...

<snip>

Oooh--all gone now! I guess in Paulian Speak that means I get a point or
two?

Brooks

[Brett]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

> American soldiers
> in Iraq behave with an aggression that may be conform to their
> training but is sadly out of sync with their task (according to
> British
> forces in the same country).

What is their task in Iraq - win hearts and minds by letting insurgents
shoot at anything in or out a coalition forces uniform or win the minds by
eliminating anything that makes an attempt at shooting at anything in or out
of a coalition uniform. The British commanders problem is probably based on
a rather stupid investigation instigated against troops who returned fire on
Bloody Sunday. The British troops that day did the right thing, pity the
press didn't agree...

[Jarg]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Exactly *what* would you do?
>
> Suggestions to turn the situation in Iraq around --- as bad
> it is, it should not be abandoned as hopeless (although it
> may very well be):
>
> 1. Persuade George W. Bush not to seek re-election.
> He would not be the first president to understand that his
> country is best served by his retirement. Bush is so widely
> hated and distrusted that his presence itself is a serious
> obstacle to the success of US foreign policy.
>


Bad idea. And it won't happen anyway so why waste the words.


> 2. Say you won't outstay being welcome.
> State clearly and without reservations that if an elected Iraqi
> government (or the majority of the Iraqi people in a fair
> referendum) desires the US and/or coalition troops to leave,
> they will go. The Iraqis need to be convinced that the best
> way to free themselves of foreign occupation is to cooperate
> in the rebuilding of their country's institutions.
>


Already done.


> 3. Ask the Iraqis to create a credible provisional government.
> Give all people with a reasonable following and influence
> a seat in an assembly; and tell them that if Iraqis want to
> govern themselves, they will all have to cooperate in creating
> a coalition government, one way or another. If the country
> is to be prevented from falling apart, now is the right time
> to start to learn to cooperate. The UN should asked to be
> the arbiter.
>


Plans already in place.


> 4. Hand over real power.
> If it the Iraqi government is to have any credibility at all, it
> must have a degree of power over the actions of the occupation
> forces, as long as the government holds together. Again, have
> the UN in the role of arbiter. Ask the UN members to "loan" a
> police force to the government, until the Iraqi police can be
> decently trained. (Right now, the Iraqi "government" is not
> even told what the occupation authority intends to do.)
>

Plans already in place.


> 5. Call on traditional power structures
> Local leaders will avoid violence that will hurt of destroy
> their own communities, if they are given a honourable,
> workable alternative. Don't put the Baathists back in charge;
> that will destroy the credibility of the US-lead coalition.
>


Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Unfortunately most of the Iraqi
talent was Baathist, much as the Nazis in Germany. The initial decision to
exclude Baathists was heavily criticized. The revised policy making
exceptions for non-idealogues seems like a good compromise.


> 6. Don't touch the oil
> And don't even dream of getting near it.
>


The US doesn't need the oil, the whole suggestion of "war for oil" was just
a bunch of silliness from poor thinkers and people with an anti-US agenda.

Sounds like most of your "plan" is a copy of the actual plan supplemented
with one completely unrealistic idea.

Jarg

[Brett]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > What is their task in Iraq -
>
> Win hearts and minds by behaving as if it were their own country.

Doubtful because then there would be no NEED to have armed troops located
there.

[John Cook]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:58:04 GMT, "Brett" > wrote:

>"John Cook" > wrote:
>> See also
>> http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=100246968&p=yxxz47664&n=100247763
>>
>> In a major change of strategy, the US is planning to offer government
>> jobs in Iraq to former senior officers of Saddam Hussein's military
>> and the ousted Baath Party.
>
>In the 1920's a revolt instigated by Shia clerics against the British had a
>significant and long lasting effect...
>


The British are well versed in this sort of thing, due to many many
conflicts, perhaps somebody should listen to them!, T.E.Lawrence's
'twelve pillars' is still relevent even today.

Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[John Cook]

Mr Gustin for President!!! :-)

That was well put, and seems to reflect the majority of opinions that
I hear in Australia, at least in the circles I mix in of course.

Where in the world do you hail from? 'Old Europe" Is my tongue in
cheek quess. ;-) ?

Cheers


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[John Cook]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:46:48 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >> > > The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
>> >> > > Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral
>decisive
>> >> > > force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US
>friendly
>> >> > > 'version' of events.
>> >> >
>> >> > LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they
>> >"rescued"?
>> Ah I think I see what your getting at the 'Marines' I Mentioned from
>> Memory were 'Rangers' and 'Delta force' that were rescued - at least I
>> think that's what you are on about?.
>
>Are the Rangers and Delta guys Marines? You can't even get your basic facts
>right, amigo.

Ah I can now see where your coming from,just because I got the units
name wrong, then whole basic premise of the UN rescuing the (insert
actual units in trouble and desperate for help) is false!,
fascinating!.

Kevin world is a scary place isn't it.


>> You use them sparingly, in conjunction with foreign peacekeepers and
>> local police, remember were trying to diffuse a difficult situation
>> created by a gung ho attitude, that's not easy to dispel, if at all
>> possible.
>
>What "gung ho" attitude? Any specific cites to support that? And it is nice
>to know that you have now backed away from your original plan to discard the
>US forces on "Day One"...

OK here goes, can you name one instance in the USA where 4 homicides
were committed where the US military bombed the local area from
helicopters, tanks, heavy machine guns etc etc etc. in the hope of
citizens handing over the murderers? hell half of New York would be
flat...

Your assertions re Day one are absurd, perhaps in future discussion
you should define what everything means in 'Kevin world' to avoid you
looking like a red necked 'kill them all and let god sort them out'
fellow.

Day one means the first day of operations, this doesn't mean you can't
have all the necessary forces and supplies in place for this event,
First day of the Iraq war didn't mean the US rushing around packing
their bags ready to go to Iraq, they were there, in force, supplied
and ready to go...
What's the definition in Kevin's world?



>> OK I'm fed up with this thread - Check out someone who you can
>> identify with here:-
>
>Heck, I was fed up by the time I got to the last post, but it was so darned
>fun pointing out that your personal critique of the "strategy and tactics"
>(and where do you lump in operational art, oh-annointed-one?) was based upon
>zilch/zero/nada experience or knowledge of things military, not to mention
>reminding you of your continual and rabid anti-US bias in all things,
>commercial and governmental, that I figured it would be worth staying
>engaged.
Rabid anti US bias ;l-), What's the description you reserve for Al Qa
ida members or Osama Kevin? please tell me as your description of me
doesn't leave you much room to improve (you have to laugh don't you!!
such a patently red faced, vein popping description for someone who
only criticizes the US, )
I have cited a pro US post re the JSF, where's your pro UN one Kevin?.

I'm fine with you having your opinion, but I would like to know if
there are a lot more like you where you live?, (I'm thinking of
booking a holiday and want to avoid areas full of raving extremists)


>So you equate being a member of the Baath Party as being de facto proof that
>they are known hostiles? Quite a leap you are making there.

Its all about definitions Kevin these people were defined by _your_
Government as hostile before the war, after the war, during the
first year of occupation (remember the 'debaathisation' comments
from your Government), now there's a change of policy and there OK to
join the new improved Iraq.


>> "There has been some criticism of US tactics from British, Polish and
>> other commanders."
>
>LOL! There is *always* criticism--even internally, within US forces, no
>doubt. Par for the course. So what? My favorite Patton quote went something
>like, "If everyone is in agreement, then someone is not thinking."

Do all your friends agree with you, by any chance?

>>
>> But there all Anti American aren't they, perhaps you wish to share
>> your thoughts as to why these two US generals are wrong, as to Why
>> the British are wrong, and the polish too..
>
>No, YOU are anti-American, by dint of your past tirades; they just disagree.
>Even you should be able to see the difference.

Apparently the news today is the rest of Washington is coming round
to their way of thinking too, time for some fancy footwork Kevin.

Baathist to join the new Iraqi regime!!, (I know I know, these are
Good Baathists, bad baathists need not apply);-).
Hmmm. sort makes you wonder what happened to all the 'Good Nazi's'
doesn't it.


>
>Out of time to debate this with you further at this point.

No your getting a reality readjustment, the 'US centric' view of the
world has to go through this when it actually meets the rest of the
world, In case you hadn't noticed the Internet is global (I really
should define 'global' as inclusive of outside of the US)

>Go back to your
>"Typhoon is Great, and All US Aircraft are Turkeys" website

That's the best thing you've said!, it neatly brings us back on
topic. (My apologies to the group for filling it up OT stuff, I offer
my humble apologies, I couldn't just sit here and not try to help
Kevin get a clue to the opinions of the global village we live in)

>and general
>bashing of us Yanks,

You don't need bashing, but a collective 'checkup from the neckup'
might be beneficial ;-)

>John--it was more entertaining than this misguided
>foray of yours into "strategy and tactics" (neither of which you ever
>specifically critiqued...).

Ok its a Gentleman's agreement, we will mention it no more, for the
benifit of international relations and RAM.

Good day to you.


>Brooks
>

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Brett]

"John Cook" > wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:58:04 GMT, "Brett" > wrote:
>
> >"John Cook" > wrote:
> >> See also
> >> http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=100246968&p=yxxz47664&n=100247763
> >>
> >> In a major change of strategy, the US is planning to offer government
> >> jobs in Iraq to former senior officers of Saddam Hussein's military
> >> and the ousted Baath Party.
> >
> >In the 1920's a revolt instigated by Shia clerics against the British had
a
> >significant and long lasting effect...
> >
>
>
> The British are well versed in this sort of thing, due to many many
> conflicts,

They might be well versed but how they and the French divided up the Ottoman
Empire is the primary reason the area is still screwed up - the world might
have been better off if they had just left the Turks in charge.....

> perhaps somebody should listen to them!,

Eisenhower didn't and the way the British left Aden in the 1960's doesn't
support the view that they learnt anything during that half century of
empire....

> T.E.Lawrence's
> 'twelve pillars' is still relevent even today.

I always thought it was seven.... and a working Arab democracy might be a
good start....

[Mary Shafer]

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 07:41:20 +1000, John Cook >
wrote:

> The British are well versed in this sort of thing, due to many many
> conflicts, perhaps somebody should listen to them!, T.E.Lawrence's
> 'twelve pillars' is still relevent even today.

Er, that's Seven Pillars of Wisdom according to my copy.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...

>
> They might be well versed but how they and the French divided up the
Ottoman
> Empire is the primary reason the area is still screwed up - the world
might
> have been better off if they had just left the Turks in charge.....
>

The Arabs didnt agree, thats why there was a revolt which the
British supported after all.

> > perhaps somebody should listen to them!,
>
> Eisenhower didn't and the way the British left Aden in the 1960's doesn't
> support the view that they learnt anything during that half century of
> empire....
>

Leaving tends to indicate they had learned the Empires are passe

> > T.E.Lawrence's
> > 'twelve pillars' is still relevent even today.
>
> I always thought it was seven.... and a working Arab democracy might be a
> good start....
>

Dont hold your breath, Iraq before the Baath party takeover
was nominally a constitutional monarchy with an elected
parliament.

Keith

[Brett]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > They might be well versed but how they and the French divided up the
> Ottoman
> > Empire is the primary reason the area is still screwed up - the world
> might
> > have been better off if they had just left the Turks in charge.....
> >
>
> The Arabs didnt agree, thats why there was a revolt which the
> British supported after all.

The comment started with "In the 1920's a revolt instigated by Shia clerics
against the British had a significant and long lasting effect..." The Sunni
Arabs in Iraq while ruled by the Ottomans were not treated as badly as the
Shia who were considered allied to the Persians by the Ottomans..

> > > perhaps somebody should listen to them!,
> >
> > Eisenhower didn't and the way the British left Aden in the 1960's
doesn't
> > support the view that they learnt anything during that half century of
> > empire....
> >
>
> Leaving tends to indicate they had learned the Empires are passe

The way they LEFT was the issue.

> > > T.E.Lawrence's
> > > 'twelve pillars' is still relevent even today.
> >
> > I always thought it was seven.... and a working Arab democracy might be
a
> > good start....
> >
>
> Dont hold your breath, Iraq before the Baath party takeover
> was nominally a constitutional monarchy with an elected
> parliament.

"Nominally" the British ensured the Shia had little to no say in Government
before they left... I would imagine that thought has crossed the minds of
the older Shia clerics who probably understand what could happen if they
don't control some of their younger clerics...

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:46:48 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> >> > > The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the
US
> >> >> > > Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral
> >decisive
> >> >> > > force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US
> >friendly
> >> >> > > 'version' of events.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they
> >> >"rescued"?
> >> Ah I think I see what your getting at the 'Marines' I Mentioned from
> >> Memory were 'Rangers' and 'Delta force' that were rescued - at least I
> >> think that's what you are on about?.
> >
> >Are the Rangers and Delta guys Marines? You can't even get your basic
facts
> >right, amigo.
>
> Ah I can now see where your coming from,just because I got the units
> name wrong, then whole basic premise of the UN rescuing the (insert
> actual units in trouble and desperate for help) is false!,
> fascinating!.
>
> Kevin world is a scary place isn't it.

You still are having difficulty with facts. Go back and reread Bowden. Or
you could peruse UN documents:
"After the June 1993 events, UNOSOM II pursued a coercive disarmament
programme in south Mogadishu. Active patrolling, weapons confiscations, and
operations were directed at the militia and depots of General Aidid's
faction (USC/SNA). A public information campaign was instituted to explain
these activities to the population. In support of the UNOSOM II mandate,
United States forces -- the United States Rangers and the Quick Reaction
Force -- were deployed in Mogadishu. These forces were not under United
Nations command and control. As part of the coercive programme, the Rangers
launched an operation in south Mogadishu on 3 October 1993, aimed at
capturing a number of key aides of General Aidid who were suspected of
complicity in the 5 June attack and subsequent attacks on United Nations
personnel and facilities. The operation succeeded in apprehending 24
suspects, including two key aides to General Aidid."

http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosom2b.htm

That kind of disagrees with your posit that the US was not acting in
accordance with the UN wishes and established policies (or was conducting
what you referred to as "unilateral decisive force" operations). And I
believe if you go back and read the appropriate sections of "Blackhawk
Down", you will find that those Paki and Malaysian units would not budge
without being accompanied by US personnel (in the tracks, IIRC).


>
>
> >> You use them sparingly, in conjunction with foreign peacekeepers and
> >> local police, remember were trying to diffuse a difficult situation
> >> created by a gung ho attitude, that's not easy to dispel, if at all
> >> possible.
> >
> >What "gung ho" attitude? Any specific cites to support that? And it is
nice
> >to know that you have now backed away from your original plan to discard
the
> >US forces on "Day One"...
>
> OK here goes, can you name one instance in the USA where 4 homicides
> were committed where the US military bombed the local area from
> helicopters, tanks, heavy machine guns etc etc etc. in the hope of
> citizens handing over the murderers? hell half of New York would be
> flat...



Idiot. That construct is so preposterous, not to mention being inappropriate
to the extreme, as to be ludicrous. You are trying to equate stability and
support operations in Iraq with criminal prosecution here in the US? You
been smoking eucalyptus leaves, or what?


>
> Your assertions re Day one are absurd, perhaps in future discussion
> you should define what everything means in 'Kevin world' to avoid you
> looking like a red necked 'kill them all and let god sort them out'
> fellow.



That was YOUR posit. Remember? You said on "day one" the US forces should be
returned to their bases and let this strange, and undefined,
instantaneously-formed uber-force of "others" assume the security role. Only
later did you backpeddle and claim that (to paraphrase), "Well, what I
*really* meant was that the US forces would just have to stay out of sight,
but they would have to provide support (such as getting these "others" into
the theater in the first place, and of course, any *real* fighting would
still be done by US forces..."


>
> Day one means the first day of operations, this doesn't mean you can't
> have all the necessary forces and supplies in place for this event,



Your words: "...the UN _with_the Arab league should pull all US troops back
into their bases on day
one, The local police force should do patrols and only be backed up by
military forces with the police having the say on when force is to be
employed and when to back off.(the sooner the Iraqi's see an Eastern
soldier instead of US/UK forces the better)." Note no mention of a continued
role for US forces, your having established a preference for those "eastern"
troops, and note that on "day one" you are shuffling the US (and UK
apparently) forces out of the picture.

> First day of the Iraq war didn't mean the US rushing around packing
> their bags ready to go to Iraq, they were there, in force, supplied
> and ready to go...
> What's the definition in Kevin's world?

We are dealing with YOUR claims, amigo. Which have been shown to be
uproarously unrealistic--so much so that you subsequently have hemmed and
hawed that we 8really* would still have a military role when the real
fightin' has to be done... Sorry, but your view of ceding control to a token
UN force, while now you want to retain the US forces to do the actual
fighting when required, is just plain laughable.


>
> >> OK I'm fed up with this thread - Check out someone who you can
> >> identify with here:-
> >
> >Heck, I was fed up by the time I got to the last post, but it was so
darned
> >fun pointing out that your personal critique of the "strategy and
tactics"
> >(and where do you lump in operational art, oh-annointed-one?) was based
upon
> >zilch/zero/nada experience or knowledge of things military, not to
mention
> >reminding you of your continual and rabid anti-US bias in all things,
> >commercial and governmental, that I figured it would be worth staying
> >engaged.


> Rabid anti US bias ;l-), What's the description you reserve for Al Qa
> ida members or Osama Kevin? please tell me as your description of me
> doesn't leave you much room to improve (you have to laugh don't you!!
> such a patently red faced, vein popping description for someone who
> only criticizes the US, )
> I have cited a pro US post re the JSF, where's your pro UN one Kevin?.

Where have you cited it? You made a claim, but did not provide a cite to
back it up. I went through three years of your posts and found nothing that
could be taken as anything but anti-US whenever the subject arose. Where is
that cite?

>
> I'm fine with you having your opinion, but I would like to know if
> there are a lot more like you where you live?, (I'm thinking of
> booking a holiday and want to avoid areas full of raving extremists)

In your case, you should probably avoid the US as a whole, given your
demonstrated proclivities.

Enough of this. You can have the last (undoubtedly anti-US again) word. You
have proven that you are really quite clueless when it comes to military
tactics, strategy, and for that matter common sense, so it is hopeless to
try and make you understand reality. Have a nice day.

Brooks


>
>
> >So you equate being a member of the Baath Party as being de facto proof
that
> >they are known hostiles? Quite a leap you are making there.
>
> Its all about definitions Kevin these people were defined by _your_
> Government as hostile before the war, after the war, during the
> first year of occupation (remember the 'debaathisation' comments
> from your Government), now there's a change of policy and there OK to
> join the new improved Iraq.
>
>
> >> "There has been some criticism of US tactics from British, Polish and
> >> other commanders."
> >
> >LOL! There is *always* criticism--even internally, within US forces, no
> >doubt. Par for the course. So what? My favorite Patton quote went
something
> >like, "If everyone is in agreement, then someone is not thinking."
>
> Do all your friends agree with you, by any chance?
>
> >>
> >> But there all Anti American aren't they, perhaps you wish to share
> >> your thoughts as to why these two US generals are wrong, as to Why
> >> the British are wrong, and the polish too..
> >
> >No, YOU are anti-American, by dint of your past tirades; they just
disagree.
> >Even you should be able to see the difference.
>
> Apparently the news today is the rest of Washington is coming round
> to their way of thinking too, time for some fancy footwork Kevin.
>
> Baathist to join the new Iraqi regime!!, (I know I know, these are
> Good Baathists, bad baathists need not apply);-).
> Hmmm. sort makes you wonder what happened to all the 'Good Nazi's'
> doesn't it.
>
>
> >
> >Out of time to debate this with you further at this point.
>
> No your getting a reality readjustment, the 'US centric' view of the
> world has to go through this when it actually meets the rest of the
> world, In case you hadn't noticed the Internet is global (I really
> should define 'global' as inclusive of outside of the US)
>
> >Go back to your
> >"Typhoon is Great, and All US Aircraft are Turkeys" website
>
> That's the best thing you've said!, it neatly brings us back on
> topic. (My apologies to the group for filling it up OT stuff, I offer
> my humble apologies, I couldn't just sit here and not try to help
> Kevin get a clue to the opinions of the global village we live in)
>
> >and general
> >bashing of us Yanks,
>
> You don't need bashing, but a collective 'checkup from the neckup'
> might be beneficial ;-)
>
> >John--it was more entertaining than this misguided
> >foray of yours into "strategy and tactics" (neither of which you ever
> >specifically critiqued...).
>
> Ok its a Gentleman's agreement, we will mention it no more, for the
> benifit of international relations and RAM.
>
> Good day to you.
>
>
> >Brooks
> >
>
> John Cook
>
> Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
> opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
>
> Email Address :-
> Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
> Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Paul J. Adam]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Yes, Kevin.
>
> No, Paul--you need to read the remainder of what I wrote instead of
snipping
> it away...

I did. Can't help it if you don't like the reply.
>
> <snip>
>
> Oooh--all gone now! I guess in Paulian Speak that means I get a point or
> two?

Sure. Take five gold stars, declare yourself the winner, tell us all how
reliable and trustworthy the New Iraqi Army is, point to the stable peaceful
utopia that the US has established there, and for an encore nail some jelly
to the ceiling.

--
Paul J. Adam

[John Cook]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:18:53 -0700, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 07:41:20 +1000, John Cook >
>wrote:
>
>> The British are well versed in this sort of thing, due to many many
>> conflicts, perhaps somebody should listen to them!, T.E.Lawrence's
>> 'twelve pillars' is still relevent even today.
>
>Er, that's Seven Pillars of Wisdom according to my copy.

Ooops, yup, I'm getting biblical stuff mixed up with bibliography
stuff. my apologies.
>
>Mary

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Jukka O. Kauppinen" > wrote in
> message ...
> >
> > Iraq is unlawful invasion, with no
> > United Nations backing. So it was an error in first place to even send
> > forces to Iraq, which they are now correcting.
> >
>
> The resumption of hostilities in Iraq was sanctioned under U.N. Security
> Council Resolution 1441.

It doesn't sanction a "resumption of hostilities", only further
inspections, and those only by the IAEA and UNMOVIC. It is silent on
the consequences of Iraq's failure to comply, however, the last
paragraph, "[The Security Council _decides_] to remain seized of the
matter.", implies that the consequences are something to be determined
at a latter date (something the French and Russians prevented). From
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687
(1991), in particular
through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and
the IAEA,
and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of
resolution 687
(1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by
this
resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament
obligations under
relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up
an enhanced
inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified
completion the
disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and
subsequent
resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament
obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual
declarations, the
Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the
Council, not
later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently
accurate, full, and
complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop
chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other
delivery systems such
as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on
aircraft,
including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons,
components, sub-components,
stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations
and
work of its research, development and production facilities, as well
as all other
chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it
claims are for
purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations
submitted
by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to
comply with,
and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall
constitute a
further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to
the Council for
assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate,
unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all,
including
underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and
means of transport
which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded,
unrestricted, and
private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the
IAEA wish
to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice
pursuant
to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the
IAEA may
at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may
facilitate the
travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and
that, at the sole
discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without
the
presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC
and
requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days
following adoption of
this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of
UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of
the
Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the
contents of the
letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq
of the
presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish
the tasks
set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and
notwithstanding
prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following
revised or
additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to
facilitate their work in
Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their
inspection
teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified
and
experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and
immunities,
corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the
Convention on
Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on
the
Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into
and out
of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to
and from
inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings,
including
immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to
Presidential
Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of
resolution
1154 (1998) of 2 March 1998;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the
names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s
chemical,
biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the
associated
research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by
sufficient
United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the
purposes of
freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including
surrounding areas
and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial
movement
so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and
landing
of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned
reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion
verifiably
to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons,
subsystems,
components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right
to
impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production
thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of
equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any
equipment,
materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of
UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts
directed
against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the
IAEA or of any
Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this
resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within
seven days of
that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution;
and demands
further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively
with
UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the
IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any
information
related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates,
including on
Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by
recommending sites to
be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such
interviews, and data to
be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by
UNMOVIC and
the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by
Iraq with
inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with
its disarmament
obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under
this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in
accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and
the need for
full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order
to secure
international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned
Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued
violations of its
obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)