Add Reply
Related Information to Post War IraqPost War Iraq - Page 99 of 171
Once again the liberal news media is off like - Page 99 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 25th Oct, 2006 - 4:55pm
Posts: 1362 - Views: 101445
versus 
So, now that the USA left Iraq can the country rebuild herself and become stable? Related Information to Post War Iraq
Post War Iraq - Page 99
I have found a better article about the NIE report.
NIE report, The Guardian
To summarize, the National Intelligence Estimate concludes the Iraq invasion has increased the threat of terrorism.
| QUOTE |
| The report, Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States, points out the "centrality" of the US invasion of Iraq in fomenting terrorist cells and attacks. One section of the 30-page report, Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement, describes how the American presence in Iraq has helped spread radical Islam by providing a focal point for anti-Americanism. While arguing that there has been success in dismantling the leadership of al-Qaida and its ability to plan major operations, the report says that radical cells have moved to more than 5,000 websites to organise and spread their message. The report's tone contradicts recent optimistic assertions by the US administration. It also furthers the divisions between the military and politicians in their assessment of the impact of US policy in Iraq. In a speech in April, thought to be largely based on the report, CIA chief General Michael Hayden, then deputy director of national intelligence, painted a more alarming picture. "New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge," Gen Hayden said. "If this trend continues, threats to the US at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide." |
I previously stated that this report was used to shape US foreign policy. I was wrong and apologise for my mistake. According to the Guardian, the National Intelligence Council, who produce the report, are charged with providing long-term assessments and analyses for the president and officials, RATHER than policy prescriptions.
The Guardian said the report has a patchy record, previously concluding that Iraq had WMDs.
Even the Christian Science Monitor, a right-wing publication, paints a similar picture.
Christian Science Monitor (I thought this was interesting article from the right)
| QUOTE |
| Nighthawk wrote, You have disregarded all the information that HAS come out of it. |
Exactly what information do you mean? I have searched on the web to find something that counters the above claims. Do you have access to the leaked parts of the report?
| QUOTE |
| Nioghthawk wrote, The document was leaked, through the New York Times (who else is enough of a traitor to do this?). It was done expressly to embarrass George W. Bush. I can't figure out why the Democrats are running against the President, since he can't run for office again, even if this WAS a Presidential election. |
Why is the NYT a traitor for publishing findings from a Government report? Isn't it the job of a newspaper to publish the news and challenge what Government's say? Would you rather a communist style state-run media that is propaganda machine for the government?
I think this report was published to question the motives of Iraq. Regardless of what has happened it is still important to know what the real reasons for invasion was.
| Offtopic but, My comments on Iraq and the Coaltion's role are purely my own, based on my own research. I am a trained journalist. I know how to read through agenda driven rubbish to get to the truth. My opinions are not those of the "left" or "against America". With all due respect, the only lies being printed are those from ignorant people who cheaply label every comment critical of their government as "anti-American". I am just as critical of my own country's role in the Iraq invasion. So please spare the anti-America nonsense, it adds nothing to this discussion. |
Edited: arvhic on 3rd Oct, 2006 - 7:24pmInternational Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 
45.3%
Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 13th Oct, 2006 - 12:01pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Iraq War Post
REPORT: BRITISH ARMY CHIEF CALLS FOR IRAQ PULLOUT
The chief of the British Army has called for a pullout of British troops from Iraq "sometime soon" and said that post-invasion planning for that war was "poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning."
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/12/...eral/index.html
Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics
Mousetrails asked me to justify a statement I made about Donald Rumsfeld and Iraq on another post.
I said:
| QUOTE |
| Also, when Saddam gassed the Kurds, it was Donald Rumsfeld who leapt to Saddam's defence, blaming the Iranians. |
Mousetrails responded by saying he couldn't find any evidence of such a defence.
I have read this a couple of times, amongst hundreds of other reports on the Iraq conflict. But on further research I cannot attribute Rumsfeld to such a statement and must therefore admit that I was partially wrong.
However, what I had confused was that the Reagan Administration, and not Rumsfeld, had partly blamed the Iranians for a massacre on the Kurds when they knew that Iraq was responsible. This was done in 1988 after 5,000 Kurds were gassed by Iraq.
What Rumsfeld did during envoys to Iraq in 1983 and 1984 was totally ignore Saddam's gassing of Iranians and Kurds while issuing hostility towards Iran. The Regan Administration increased its funding to Saddam, including weapons used against Iran and Kurds. They did this despite knowing what Saddam was using the weapons for. The US was forced to condemn the use of chemical weapons, but before that blocked an Iranian attempt to have the matter discussed before the UN Security Council. Rumsfeld's visit, as Mousetrails points out, coincided at a time when Iraqi used mustard gas on innocent civilians and he never once mentioned it.
But it was the Regan Administration, with many familiar faces including Cheney, who tried to confuse Iraq's role of using Chemical Weapons on the Kurds in 1988 by partly blaming the Iranians. This article below, written by Peter W. Galbraith, a former US ambassador to Croatia, provides clarity.
| QUOTE |
| Rumsfeld has a short memory for who 'appeased' Iraq In 1983, President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, then in the third year of a war of attrition with neighboring Iran. Although Iraq had started the war with a blitzkrieg attack in 1980, the tide had turned by 1982 in favor of much larger Iran, and the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose. Reagan chose Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984. Inconveniently, Iraq had begun to use chemical weapons against Iran in November 1983, the first sustained use of poison gas since a 1925 treaty banning that. Rumsfeld never mentioned this blatant violation of international law to Hussein, instead focusing on shared hostility toward Iran and an oil pipeline through Jordan. Rumsfeld apparently did mention it to Tariq Aziz, Iraq's foreign minister, but by not raising the issue with the paramount leader he signaled that good relations were more important to the United States than the use of poison gas. This message was reinforced by US conduct after the Rumsfeld missions. The Reagan administration offered Hussein financial credits that eventually made Iraq the third-largest recipient of US assistance. It normalized diplomatic relations and, most significantly, began providing Iraq with battlefield intelligence. Iraq used this information to target Iranian troops with chemical weapons. And when Iraq turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1988, killing 5,000 in the town of Halabja, the Reagan administration sought to obscure responsibility by falsely suggesting Iran was also responsible. On August 25, 1988 - five days after the Iran-Iraq War ended - Iraq attacked 48 Kurdish villages more than 100 miles from Iran. Within days, the US Senate passed legislation, sponsored by Claiborne Pell, Democrat of Rhode Island, to end US financial support for Hussein and to impose trade sanctions. To enhance the prospects that Reagan would sign his legislation, Pell sent me to Eastern Turkey to interview Kurdish survivors who had fled across the border. As it turned out, the Reagan administration agreed that Iraq had gassed the Kurds, but strongly opposed sanctions, or even cutting off financial assistance. Colin Powell, then the national security adviser, coordinated the Reagan administration's opposition. |
In breaking news, a new report by the highly credible Lancet journal has painted a far worse picture of the Iraq war. It says that 650,000 people have lost their lives as a result of the conflict and subsequent violence. Of these, about 200,000 have been attributed to coalition forces.
Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.
'655,000 Iraqis killed since invasion'
Edited: arvhic on 16th Oct, 2006 - 10:15pmInternational Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%
Page 99 Iraq War Post
I was surprised that such words are being used by a senior diplomat: ARROGANT? STUPID?, possibly it is a political tactic other than that it certainly does give new meaning to diplomacy?
| QUOTE |
| U.S. ARROGANT, STUPID IN IRAQ: AMERICAN DIPLOMAT A senior U.S. diplomat has criticized his country's role in Iraq as President George W. Bush said the United States is still expecting to win the war, but is changing its tactics. FULL STORY: https://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200.../iraq-bush.html |
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3231 100%
Post Date: 23rd Oct, 2006 - 12:14pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Iraq War Post
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I MISSPOKE ON IRAQ POLICY
A senior State Department diplomat apologized Sunday for having told the Arab satellite network Al-Jazeera on Saturday that there is a strong possibility history will show the United States displayed "arrogance" and "stupidity" in its handling of the Iraq war. What does the White House plan to do about the surge of violence in Iraq? Counselor to the President, Dan Bartlett, joins us live.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/23/fernandez...ment/index.html
Post War Iraq
I said, "Never again!"
| Offtopic but, I decided because of the content of the posts on this thread that I would stay out of it. I deleted many notices from my e-mail about new posts without reading the content, until one came through from J.B. I couldn't resist seeing what he had to say. My mother told me never to say, "Never again," but I didn't learn that lesson very well, so here I am, ..........again |
JB, before I called up the website for the article from CBC News I guessed it was somebody from our own State Department. Guess what JB?
From CBC News
| QUOTE |
| there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," Alberto Fernandez, an Arabic-speaking diplomat in the State Department's bureau of Near Eastern affairs. |
Isuppose this should be off topic because it's not about the shooting in Iraq. It's about why there is shooting in Iraq.
| Offtopic but, How did I know where the words arrogance and stupidity came from? First, my wife has a friend that just retired from the State Department as a high government attache. In 15 years I never heard him say a kind word about a Republican administration. Every word he spoke was with pure hatred and vitriol for the administration that was paying his wages. It has been highly speculated that the state department has attempted to run a shadow government and was aided by Colin Powell. It's no secret at all that the "leaks" are known to come from the state department. Then you have the democratic party that cannot stand the fact that they don't run the Senate or Congress. They will lie, cheat, steal, "leak" secrets, start rumors, and borrow millions they don't have to run attack ads at election time. Add to this beautiful mixture the lap-dog media that goes along with everything the democrats say and do to help them regain power. I would not read any news paper printed in the United States expecting to get the real, un-slanted, truth. For years the elite news media had all the sources and spoon-fed the world what they wanted us to know. But no more. Today there are lots of sources to get the truth from. I get my "news" from conservative talk radio and conservative bloggers. |
There is no way Ronald Reagan, or Bush #1, or Bush #2 could have seen the future, so they probably did what they honestly thought was best with the information they had at the moment. If they failed I'm sorry, but to have every democratic Congressman, Senator, and liberal news paper in my country second guessing every step for the world to see and hear to me is nothing short of treason.
Now, why the bloodshed in Iraq today? Because we cut and ran from Viet Nam, and Mogadishu. Because we were judged to be gutless when the Cole was bombed, when the Kovar Towers were bombed, and when our Twin Towers were truck bombed the first time and we did nothing!. There is bloodshed in Iraq today because they think America has no stomach for war and killing. and if they can scare enough Americans into voting the democrats back into power, they will be right.
The world had better pray that enough Americans see through the lies to keep sane people in office, because the only thing that stands between sanity and world terrorism is the United States of America and England, and if America falls........................................
Edited: mousetrails on 25th Oct, 2006 - 5:00amInternational Level: Politician / Political Participation: 102 10.2%
Post War Iraq - Page 99
It has finally happened. George W Bush has conceded to common sense and called for US forces to leave Iraq.
| QUOTE |
| US in Iraq: We're out of here - The Independent In the firmest indication yet of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, America's most senior general there and its top civilian official have drawn the outlines of a political and military plan that could see a substantial pullout of US troops within 12 to 18 months. Yesterday's announcement looked like a strategy change carrying implications for British troops in Iraq, although President Bush's aides deny any "dramatic shifts" in policy. It came after Mr Bush's spokesman acknowledged on Monday that the President had cut and run from his signature promise that America would "stay the course" in Iraq. |
Even if this is a desperate last-ditch effort to win votes for the Republican party for the mid-term congressional elections, I think it makes a lot of sense. I have to pay credit for Bush for admitting they got it wrong. I never thought such a concession would be forthcoming. It also goes to show that public pressure can impact on foreign policy, even if it takes a bit longer than it perhaps should.
On the matter of a US diplomat speaking his mind:
JB, I"m not convinced his statement about the coalition being "arrogant" and 'stupid" was politically motivated. It is basically the truth. I applaud government officials for speaking out of line. From my personal experience this is a very rare commodity in this media managed age.
I also think there is a growing tide of dissenters within Coalition Governments that are starting to publicly voice their dismay at the Iraq invasion. In the UK, the Chief of General Staff Sir Richard Dannatt, recently said Coalition occupation forces exacerbate the problem in Iraq. Dannatt is one of the highest ranking officials in the UK military and his remarks were supported by a large number of troops who wrote into newspapers.
General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal - BBC News
Other British Labour politicians have also questioned the war. Clare Short recently resigned from the party because of "Tony Blair's lies". A lot of backbenchers have also revolted. In Australia, this is less obvious because the ruling Liberals are very tightly run. But why is free speech in a democracy such a shock? This man should be applauded for speaking his mind regardless of how it affects Bush's approval ratings.
| QUOTE |
| Mousetrails wrote, There is bloodshed in Iraq today because they think America has no stomach for war and killing. and if they can scare enough Americans into voting the democrats back into power, they will be right. |
I always find it amusing how some Americans believe the sky will fall on everyone's head if Uncle Sam doesn't bomb people in far away places. If you honestly believe the Iraq situation has happened because of Vietnam, Mogadishu and other past conflicts, you need to stop reading those conservative newspapers. Iraq has NOTHING to do with wars in the past and everything to do with its own history. When will it ever sink in that people do not like being occupied by foreign forces? Would you like it if Iraqis occupied your country? It doesn't matter whether they are Americans, Japanese, Jews, Russians or Germans, people will always, and should always, rise up against occupation forces. The Iraq insurgency has absolutely nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats. It wouldn't have anything to do with the US if they weren't so desperate to secure Iraqi oil.
Here is a very interesting read about what went wrong in Iraq and where to from here. It is written by the well-respected Independent journalist Patrick Cockburn. It is not left-leaning or right-leaning and this reporter does his research on the ground, not from a 5-star Baghdad hotel. I recommend everyone gives it the 5 minutes it deserves.
Patrick Cockburn: From 'mission accomplished' to mission impossible for the Iraqis
Edited: arvhic on 25th Oct, 2006 - 10:23amInternational Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%
Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 99
Once again the liberal news media is off like a comet in the wrong direction. President Bush just held a press conference and said again and again that the US is not leaving Iraq on a timetable. What was said was that it might be possible in 18 months.
Quote=arvhic
| QUOTE |
| I always find it amusing how some Americans believe the sky will fall on everyone's head if Uncle Sam doesn't bomb people in far away places. |
| Offtopic but, It always amazes me when a kid that wasn't even a gleam in his fathers eye pretends that the world would be as sane as it is today if the US military had not come to England's aid against the Germans. I remember WWII. England was fighting for its very existence and welcomed the US on its soil with open arms. I have no doubt whatever that England would be speaking the German language today if thousands of young American men had not given their lives in Europe. Yep, we spent millions on guns, tanks, and airplanes to bomb people in far away places to save England's and the world's backsides. The fact that 6,500 Americans died on the Normandy Beaches and a total of 135,576 died in Europe is a matter of record that, I'm sorry, cannot be argued with, although the news media of today would probably try. |
International Level: Politician / Political Participation: 102 10.2%
TOPIC: Post War Iraq