Alaska Darin Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 So, that means the UN is great organization to watch over our very lives?If they aren't taking bribes, their peacekeepers are raping women in Africa. But hey, it was you liberals that use to say our sanctions were starving Iraq babies. Now the we find out that money that was to used on food and medical care was used bribe french and russian crooks, do you guys ever plan a protest march against that? I SAID: "Pay NO attention to the man behind the curtain!"
erynthered Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 Both are exercises in the failures of imposing bureaucratic will. Not surprised you'd miss that connection. Just once, I'd love for you ideological liberals to turn your glaring eye on the crap you love so much. You'll find it eerily similiar it is to the crap you supposedly despise. Nice post. And I'm thinking of a word that rhymes with bureaucracy. BTW, whats similiar?
RkFast Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 We probably won't even bomb them over their nuclear program; if we won't bomb an honest-to-God international pariah like North Korea over an actual test, we're probably not bombing a country who has international backing over the installation of centrifuges. Now wait one damned second..."The Media" TOLD ME we are drawing up plans to attack Iran!!!!!!!!!!
Bungee Jumper Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 Now wait one damned second..."The Media™" TOLD ME we are drawing up plans to attack Iran!!!!!!!!!! We're drawing up plans to attack Liechtenstein and Upper Volta, too. Half the Pentagon exists strictly to draw up plans for anything they can dream up. The other half exists to do PowerPoint presentations.
Wacka Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 We're drawing up plans to attack Liechtenstein and Upper Volta, too. Half the Pentagon exists strictly to draw up plans for anything they can dream up. The other half exists to do PowerPoint presentations. You forgot Vatican City.
erynthered Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 Just heard on the radio, that two high ranking Iraqi generals may have been involved in the killings. Story still developing..............
molson_golden2002 Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 Just heard on the radio, that two high ranking Iraqi generals may have been involved in the killings. Story still developing.............. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249403,00.html You have to wonder what amazing evidence appeared to swing the investigation in this direction. My theory is...seeing how everyone has a theory on this thread, that the military was told to float the idea Iran did this first just to give the warmongers a charge. Oh, and another theory, Bush won't attack Iran. No, make that a prediction. No Iran attack. He just can't hit Iran with the oil situtaion the way it is. So why all the noise? To blame Iran for the faliure to develop a democracy or whatever. That's all. This is all a blame game now. Who lost Iraq? The media, the Democrats, Iran and Molson_Golden2002. Everyone but Bush
Orton's Arm Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 This was on ABC radio over the weekend. They are finding Iranian markings on IEDs, Iranian supplied arms and ammo. I said a while ago, that the Iranians and Syrians were funding, supplying and even manning the terrorism in Iraq, but I was called a right wing nut by some here. I didn't call it an insurgency, because it is mostly foreigners doing it, not Iraqis. One of the clerics in Iraq that was against us is saying he might let us in Sadir City because he realizes the Iranians are trying to force us out and then they will try to take over Iraq. Get over your hatrered of Bush and take a good look at what's happening. Like I said before, if we don't do something about Iran now, we'll have WWWIII. Tthis time it will be nuclear. Talking won't work, it didn't work before WWII. It's true the Iranians have been supporting attacks against the occupation government of Iraq. From the Iranian point of view, it's better that the American military gets bogged down in Iraq, than gets freed up to go and invade Iran. Also, the longer the Iraq war drags on, the less supportive the American public is going to be about undertaking new invasions in the Middle East. In other words, Iran is simply acting in its own self-interest. It's also in Iran's interest to have nuclear weapons; in order to balance out Israel's nuclear program. My own thinking about the Iraq situation is that we should adopt Biden's plan to divide Iraq into three relatively autonomous regions, with the central government controlling oil, currency, and the military. Biden's plan could significantly reduce local Iraqi support for the present uprising; and thereby help to get the U.S. out of this mess.
molson_golden2002 Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 My own thinking about the Iraq situation is that we should adopt Biden's plan to divide Iraq into three relatively autonomous regions, with the central government controlling oil, currency, and the military. Biden's plan could significantly reduce local Iraqi support for the present uprising; and thereby help to get the U.S. out of this mess. David Brooks of the New York Times this past sunday: During the summer of 1995, Edward Joseph was serving as a U.N. peacekeeper in Bosnia. He was asked to help Muslim women and children flee from an area near Srebrenica, where 7,000 Muslims had already been slaughtered by Serb forces. It was a controversial mission. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees refused to participate, believing the evacuation would just complete the ethnic cleansing. But the high commissioner didn’t see the crowds of Muslim women shrieking in terror as Serb jeeps rolled by. Joseph did. It might seem high-minded to preach ethnic reconciliation from afar, Joseph now says, but in a civil war, when you can’t protect people, it’s immoral to leave them to be killed. Gradually, leaders on all sides of the Bosnian fight came to see it was in their interest to separate their peoples. And once the ethnic groups were given sanctuary, it became possible to negotiate a peace that was imperfect, but which was better than the reverberating splashes of blood. Today, many of the people active in Bosnia believe they have a model that could help stabilize Iraq. They acknowledge the many differences between the two places, but Iraq, they note, is a disintegrating nation. Ethnic cleansing is dividing Baghdad, millions are moving, thousands are dying and the future looks horrific. The best answer, then, is soft partition: create a central government with a few key powers; reinforce strong regional governments; separate the sectarian groups as much as possible. In practice, that means, first, modifying the Iraqi Constitution. As Joe Biden points out, the Constitution already goes a long way toward decentralizing power. It gives the provinces the power to have their own security services, to send ambassadors to foreign countries, to join together to form regions. Decentralization is not an American imposition, it’s an Iraqi idea. But, he adds, so far the Constitution doesn’t yet have legislation that would do things like equitably share oil and gas revenue. The Sunnis will never be content with a strip of sand unless they’re constitutionally guaranteed 20 percent of the nation’s wealth. The second step is getting implicit consent from all sects that separation and federalism are in their interest. The Shiites would have to accept that there never will be a stable Iraq if the Sunnis are reduced to helot status. The Kurds would have to accept that peace and stability are worth territorial compromise in Kirkuk. The Sunnis would have to accept that they’re never going to run Iraq again, and having a strong Sunni region is better than living under a Shiite jackboot. As Les Gelb says, unless the thirst for vengeance has driven the leaders in Iraq beyond the realm of reason, it should be possible to persuade them to see where their best interests lie. The third step in a soft partition would be the relocation of peoples. This would mean using U.S. or Iraqi troops to shepherd people who want to flee toward areas where they feel safe. It would mean providing humanitarian assistance so they can get back on their feet. As Edward Joseph and Michael O’Hanlon note, in this kind of operation, timing is everything. Move people in a certain neighborhood too early, and militias could perceive a vacuum and accelerate the violence. Move too late and you could be moving corpses. The fourth step is getting Iraq’s neighbors to buy into the arrangement. Presumably neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia really relishes complete chaos in Iraq and a proxy war with each other after the U.S. withdraws. The Turks would have to be reassured that this plan means no independent Kurdistan will ever come into being. The most serious objection to soft partition is that the Sunni and Shiite populations are too intermingled in Baghdad and elsewhere to really separate. This objection, sadly, becomes less of a problem every day. But it would still be necessary to maintain peacekeepers in the mixed neighborhoods, be open to creative sovereignty structures, and hope that the detoxification of the situation nationally might reduce violence where diverse groups touch. In short, logic, circumstances and politics are leading inexorably toward soft partition. The Bush administration has been slow to recognize its virtues because it is too dependent on the Green Zone Iraqis. The Iraqis talk about national unity but their behavior suggests they want decentralization. Sooner or later, everybody will settle on this sensible policy, having exhausted all the alternatives. More Articles in Opinion »
pdh1 Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249403,00.html This is all a blame game now. Who lost Iraq? The media, the Democrats, Iran and Molson_Golden2002. Everyone but Bush You are right. I never heard anyone blame Bush for anything. Here on this board, or in the media. Thanks for the clarity.....
Orton's Arm Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 David Brooks of the New York Times this past sunday: During the summer of 1995, Edward Joseph was serving as a U.N. peacekeeper in Bosnia. He was asked to help Muslim women and children flee from an area near Srebrenica, where 7,000 Muslims had already been slaughtered by Serb forces. That was an excellent article. Thanks for sharing it. I'm surprised that someone with as much wisdom and insight as Biden apparently has isn't the Democratic frontrunner.
Adam Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 Theoretically, the best way to take care of them is to have the UN increase economic sanctions on the Iranian "Government", basically crushing their government, and forcing a regime change as peacefully as possible. Since that is out of the realm of possibility, because the UN doesn't really exists, we have to hope we can avoid an all out war. I do expect the worst, which means an all out war with Iran, and you always hope to avoid civilian casualties, but they are always an inevitability in war. I thin a war with Iran would be much tougher and the death tolls would be far higher than with Iraq- but to let Iran continue on their current path in suicidal
yall Posted February 2, 2007 Author Posted February 2, 2007 Just heard on the radio, that two high ranking Iraqi generals may have been involved in the killings. Story still developing.............. Hmmm... where are the people questioning the source here? Don't misinterpret, I'm not saying that you are lying about having heard this on the radio, but I don't see anyone saying "bah! that's just the warmongers. It's not even on NBC right now, how could it possibly be true!" And this development, even if it proves to be true, doesn't rule out Iranian involvement. If these generals were Shiites they could very well be working with the Iranians. If they were Sunni's however, almost surely they were not.
X. Benedict Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 You forgot Vatican City. Only one buck sergeant is assigned to that, but there is a plan.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 Maybe we should have waited for UN inspectors to finish there job. Would have been better than this disasterous occupation. You think.
Adam Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 Hate to burst your bubble, but we had "independent verification" in regards to WMD exsisting in Iraq pre-2003. The problem, IMHO, is that we were naive to think that we could just drop in without them knowing about it, and find them. They had plenty of advance notice to get rid of them
Alaska Darin Posted February 3, 2007 Posted February 3, 2007 Only one buck sergeant is assigned to that, but there is a plan. You're wrong. The Pope has his own Secret Service. We'd need very special forces.
/dev/null Posted February 3, 2007 Posted February 3, 2007 That was an excellent article. Thanks for sharing it. I'm surprised that someone with as much wisdom and insight as Biden apparently has isn't the Democratic frontrunner. I'm not surprised. Experience and a proven track record mean little in American politics these days Biden is one of the few candidates on either side that is more of a statesman than American Idol contestant
Brian Cohen Posted February 4, 2007 Posted February 4, 2007 True, but don't you think it would be a bit complacent to assume that Iran, having spent the money to acquire state-of-the-art anti-ship missiles, wouldn't have bothered to find out how to use them properly as well? Actually that has been the modus operandi of any number of Arab/Middle Eastern militaries for a long time. Too much interest in hardware, and not enough in software, i.e. the people who operate them and the strategic plan for their use.
chicot Posted February 4, 2007 Posted February 4, 2007 Actually that has been the modus operandi of any number of Arab/Middle Eastern militaries for a long time. Too much interest in hardware, and not enough in software, i.e. the people who operate them and the strategic plan for their use. While it is true that Arab armies have shown a high degree of incompetence in the past, it does not follow that that always has to be the case. In the recent Israel-Hizbollah war, a major factor was Hizbollah's use of anti-tank weapons. Not only did they possess them, but they proved that they knew how to use them very effectively as well. It is more than likely that they received some sort of training from Iran. While it is certainly possible that Iran may not know how to use the latest Russian anti-ship missiles effectively, it would be a very stupid commander indeed that would rely on that assumption. Surely, it would be far more prudent to assume the worst case scenario, that Iran not only possesses these missiles but also knows how to use them, and plan for that.
Recommended Posts