Iraq needs to stop complaining!

I understand about building bridges... but you can build bridges out of other issues, other than Iraq. Just because you want to put an olive branch out doesn't mean you have to justify thier actions or should I say inaction??? No.

Build bridges with the Eu? Hell that'd be good for everyone, but when it comes to Iraq they should have no say. None.

What they attempted failed and now they want to flip to the other side as if nothing happened. That means next time they'll do the same. It's called precedent, and the U.S. and the U.K. shouldn't allow that. IMHO.

France is not flipping to the other side as if nothing happened. What they attempted, did not fail: it got illegally over-ruled by a nation so strong it doens't (have to) care about laws, resolutions and deals anymore.

Most of the EU was against military action against Iraq, and still is. The goal though was the only thing about everyone agreed on: getting rid of the Baath-regime. That goal has been reached, and I think now is the perfect time to proove that we're all adults and play by the rules from now on. And that is: let the UN do what it's supposed to do. I'm sorry, but this is one thing the US can't handle. And I don't think you should blame anyone for playing by the rules, no matter how ridiculous those rules might be in your eyes.

Tomorrow (Saturday), Iraqi opposition and American representatives will gather to talk about Iraq's future. It won't be easy, and here is why:

Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC, the ex-opposition), stronlgy criticized General Jay Garner last Wednesday (Reuters). Garner is the one who will be responsible for Iraq's nearby future.
Chalabi, he himself having the reputation of a fiddler, told Reuters that Garner "should be in Iraq already. Why isn't here yet?".
Chalabi probably will be the "facade" for the American interim-government.
Highly likely, even, since some 700 INC-militants have been dressed and armed by the US already, and are from now on known as 'Iraqi Free Forces'.
In total, 43 Iraqi's are invited for the upcoming gathering: 14 ex-exiles, and 29 internal dissidents from the most representative groups. Chalabi already commented on the composition of this group: "The traditional clan-leaders are over-represented. They are important, but Iraq in the first place is an urban society. The urbans, and especially those from Baghdad, are under-represented.
The US delegation will consist of Zalmay Khalilzad (White House's representative in the Iraqi opposition), Ryan Cocker (vice-president for External Affairs) and a representative from Rumsfeld (minister of defence).

The Iraqi territory will probably be split in three zones: an Arab zone, an Iranian zone, and a Turkish zone, each with an American 'governor'. The British don't like the idea, as they'd liked to see the UN handle it. And so does the Iraqi opposition.

The Americans are getting lessons from the Israelians already (they should know, they had to occupy Libanon for 18 years), but I doubt it'll be enough.

Ariel Sharon's Defensive Shield-operation has been going on for about a year now (occupating of the Western Jordan, Gaza from time to time). This indeed has led to lesser suicide-attacks, although Israel never could entirely stop it. Israel has been heavily criticized for their way of handling this situation: the use of excessive force, check-points for all civilians under humiliating circumstances,...), and the Israelians are seeing the US do exactly the same in Iraq now.
The difference between the two situations is of course that the US wants to turn Iraq into a democracy, as opposed to Israel that doesn't wanna hear about a Palestinian state, democratic or not, and considers every Palestinian a potential terrorist.

Shlomo Brom, ex Israelian general and now a researcher at the Jaffa Centre for Strategic Studies, compares the situation to Northern Ireland. He has one advice for the Anglo-American coalition: "The most important decision is when to leave. We've been too long in Libanon, and the Anglo-american coalition shouldn't make the same mistake. There is one big difference: Iraq doesn't have borders with the UK or the US, so the decision to leave should be much easier."

The comparison with Libanon (18 years of occupation by Israel since 1982) makes sense: Israel invaded Libanon to stop terrorism, and that is the exact same official reason the US have invaded Iraq. But in the following occupation, the Libanese started to hate the occupator. Israel didn't learn from that fast enough.

In the '70's, Palestian warriors established some sort of a mini-state in the south of Libanon. From there, Israel was infiltrated, attacked and hostages were taken. They also conspired against Libanon and the Beiroet-regime. Some Libanese christians asked for Israel's help, but prime minister Rabin (Labour-government) hesitated.
In 1981, Menachem Begin (conservative Likud) became prime minister, and let General Ariel Sharon (Minister of Defense) convince him. Sharon became the architect of the invasion of Libanon.
In 1982, Palestinians murdered the Israeli ambassador in London. This was enough reason for Israel to invade Libanon, although the Arafat's PLO had nothing to do with the murder (as acknowledged later).
The Libanese sjiites saw the Isreali as the liberators. But that didn't last long. One civilization never has a lot of patience with an occupier. Ze'ev Schiff (an Israeli journalist) advices the US to leave Iraq when it's time to leave, and not to forget there is no such thing as an 'enlightened occupation'.

Now take into account that there are Arabian Sunniets, Arabian Sjiits, Kurdish Sunniets, Persian Sjiits, Turkish, Azerian Sjiites AND Armenians in Iraq, and you'll see that it's virtually impossible to quickly solve the problem.

27 American experts have asked the NATO to "actively support the destruction of weapons of mass destructions, their factories and stocks". NATO does not have any authorisation in Iraq. Nothing to worry about, they say: they'll ask the UN Security Council to vote a resolution allowing the NATO to operate as a security-force in Iraq.

I'll be the last one to say that France doesn't want a piece of the cake. That does not change the fact that the EU still considers the American invasion/liberation an act of war. Not allowing the EU/UN to help rebuild Iraq would be against UN rules, again. But most of all: it'll be a desaster for the Iraqi people. The Anglo-American coalition simply does not have the means to rebuild Iraq. Rebuilding Iraq and turning it into a democracy is not just a matter of building schools or feeding the Iraqi's. There's a lot more that should be taken care of, and I hope we can all sit together and give the Iraqi's what they deserve: a democratic, prosperous Iraq.

I'm all for the U.N. being involved as I've already stated but I don't think that France, Russia, or Germany should prosper from it. I'm all for them pumping money into Iraq to build up it's infrastructure, I'm also aware that the U.S. will need help in these difficult times and in the future but that doesn't change the fact that what we did was proper whether it was against tainted int'l "law" or not. Of course this is my opinion, but isn't that what this is all about anyway?

Every country uses international law when and where it suits it. I can spend all day explaining what int'l laws Germany has broken alone, not even considering the other two, so please stop already with the "you can't do this without the will of the people" crap, okay?
It's gotten old.

A couple of not so quick points and then you lot can neg me to death....... ;)

Firstly, there is nothing about the UN that makes their mental meanderings law. Thus, this war is not illegal. Nothing about the UN and it's decisions supercedes the law of the sovereign nations that partake. Thus, complain and whine all you like about the fact that after 12 years the US gave up on the UN and made it's own, legal, decision but please stop trying to use law as a basis for your dislike of reality.

Secondly, as a verteran of 10 years in the military with three tours in Northern Irelend and the training that led up to each tour I would like to point out the following:-

1. In built up areas it is often _very_ difficult to determine the direction gunfire is actually coming from. In the right, (or wrong depending upon how you look at it) circumstances, gunfire can appear to come from exactly the opposite direction it is actually coming from and, sometimes can appear to be all around you at once. This is a result of the way the buildings are oriented, the source of the sound and the size of the buildings.

2. The British Army understands this and several hours prior to each tour in NI are spend on a range that simulates a built up area and re-echos the guns they fire towards you in strange ways. Your task in these exercises is to determine the type of weapon, (garand, AK-47, colt .45, .22 long, .22 short, Thompson SMG etc. etc.), locate the source of the shot, identify the gunman and kill him. It's not as easy as it sounds, believe me....... I do not believe that the American Army has ever undergone this kind of training and would find downtown Baghdad a confusing area in which to conduct operations.

3. There may not have been any gunfire from the hotel in the preceding few minutes but that does not rule out the fact that the soldiers may have firmly believed that the gunfire was, indeed, coming from there when, in fact, it may have been coming from behind them. The reporters present may not have even heard what the soldiers were hearing other than apparently muffled and distant gunfire.

4. Ever been into a new city that you are not familiar with? Can you identify all the buildings within it?..... Of course not. These soldiers would have done the best they can to memorize the route of their incursion from maps and ariel photographs and were probably shown the hotel on both. But I can assure you, (again), that when the perspective has changed from an overhead picture or a map things just don't look like you imagined them to look like. Distances "alter", sizes alter and the natural preconceptions of what you think something is going to look like are almost always wrong. Furthermore, very few if any soldiers are wasting their time poring over maps and photos to determine what is what and where. They are, quite rightly, looking outwards for the protection of both themselves and their team members. It's highly likely they had no idea which building they were looking at.

5. With all the reporters in the hotel there would have been significant movement within the building that the troops could see. There were probably numerous cameras pointing at the soldiers from there too. It would only take one little reflection off a lens to give the impression of a muzzle flash to an observer on the ground.

6. You may see a muzzle flash, (or what you think is a muzzle flash), but it may be a second or more before you hear the confirming "crack and thump" of the round and the shot itself. See, light, bullets and sound travel at different speeds. The light gets there first, (muzzle flash), the bullet gets there second, ("crack" as it breaks the sound barrier - off course you don't hear this if the guy is a good shot), then the sound finally reaches you, (thump). Again, let me assure you, if you are all aimed up at a window that you suspect trouble from and you see what you think is a muzzle flash there a second is a looooooong time to wait to see if the incoming round misses. High chance that you will fire at least one shot before the sounds begin to reach you.

7. If you are a tank gunner in that situation you are going to do a shitload more harm than your average rifleman will do with his single shot.

8. It is a fact of life, based on human nature, that if one guy fires at a target that is attacking them, (even if he is in error), a whole bunch of his buddies will give the target a couple of extra rounds for good measure....... You can't change this in normal soldiers..... It's going to happen.... They are scared, tense and a tad itchy on the trigger...... Pop yourself in a dangerous situation every now and again..... Your survival instincts will kick up a notch or two as well.

To conclude todays lesson in warfare I'd like to make the following point:-

Soldiers take no great joy in killing those they do not intend to kill. Yes, they get all "whooped" up when they take out an enemy tank or a sniper but there is a deep sadness, (yes, there really is, (for you disbelievers)), when they kill someone that was not part of their mission to kill. It is not what they are there for and it is not what they were trained to do. Every soldier sees themselves as the best trained and the best at what they do, they have to..... It's kinda hard to commit yourself to battle if you don't have that kind of confidence, (heck, after we got our parachute wings we were almost bulletproof.....<s>). It is their _failure_ when they kill the wrong target and it often brings self doubt. The good soldiers understand that no matter how good they think they are, they are still human and will make these mistakes when using powerful weapons on crowded battlefields and they move on. Others will be scarred for life and haunted by the visions of what they did..........

No-one deliberately killed these journalists nor any other civilian. These journalists put themselves in harms way for furtherance of their own career. Just like soldiers, I'm sure journalists think that their life should be charmed too....... Sadly enough they are not.... They are flesh and bone too. Sad as it may be that they died the furore generated by their colleagues is unwarranted and unnecessary.

Did I not make myself clear in THIS POST??

I'm done discussing things here. Figure it out yourself.

Tiger Shark > I'm glad to read a documented reply for once... I'll reply to you in private if you don't mind.

Just to make sure even the babies read it:

Quote:

---

Could you all do me one huge favour and stop giving out antipoints in Cosmos? Thanks!

Many people don't agree with people getting negged for just stating their opinion. Many people don't agree with people getting heaps of antipoints for non-security related posts.

The original idea of Cosmos was to make it a private (invite-only) forum, but that has never been implemented. I myself don't like the idea of having it that way, but keep on negging and giving out positives, and one day you'll find Cosmos to be invite-only.

Let's grow up, keep on the same discussions we've always had on Cosmos... but without the antipoints (and yes, that means this thread included )

---

And here I thought, Negative was above insults..... How righteously indignant you act when you feel that you are being insulted, but look at how you act when someone doesn't do what you want...

I believe that's called being hypocritical...

Sometimes AO is extremely entertaining.

Cheers

It's not about what I want, KorpDeath. This thread should make it clear.

Bottom-line: keep on using antipoints on Cosmos, and one day you'll find it to be invite-only (that's not aimed at you... I'm talking in general here).

Make it invite only. That's kosher with me. Keep the antipoint system, or dump it. That's fine with me too. I'm easy to please. :)

Especially since they found "suicide bomber vests" in Iraq. So much for Saddam having no ties with terrorists, heh?

I don't expect anyone to admit they were wrong about this whole thing, it's only a matter of time before they verify the existence of WMD in Iraq. I just think it's funny everybody scrambling around to find something new to bitch about when it comes to the U.S. now that they feel their ship is going down.

Bottom line: If you try to teach a pig to sing, you'll just waste your time and just piss off the pig. (that's not aimed at you, that's just a general rule to live by.)

Hmm,.

One thing that is now being admitted by the French, Russians & Germans is that they stand to loose billions of $ as a result of the war if the Iraqi debts are written off. Which makes you wonder how principled their opposition was in the first place. My view is that France want to extend and keep their empire/influence in Africa (very popular taking an anti US stance in that part of the world), but on the other hand Germany has sound reasons after WWII to adopt a pacifist role; and Russia was/is seriously worried about loosing the lucrative oil deals it has with Iraq.

I suspect some sort of WMD will turn up sooner or later. Whether or not it is enough to justify invading a sovereign state, is a tricky one, although one thing that a lot of people overlook when talking about the number of civilian casualties in this war, is how many people Saddam was killing and torturing to death on a daily basis. There a lots of reports over here about people who returned to Iraq in the past 10 years, and were promptly murdered by elements of Saddam’s regime.

Nothing wrong with making this thread invite only - I'm only trying to expess my opinion, which I know does not agree with a lot of you, given the negs together with some pos I have received.

One other interesting point is that whilst it is true that the majority of the population in EU is opposed to the war, this changes into a majority in favour of the war if you count the Eastern European states that are set to join the EU next year.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darkes
One thing that is now being admitted by the French, Russians & Germans is that they stand to loose billions of $ as a result of the war if the Iraqi debts are written off

---

Russia agreed yesterday to remit all of Iraq's debts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darkes
I suspect some sort of WMD will turn up sooner or later. Whether or not it is enough to justify invading a sovereign state, is a tricky one, although one thing that a lot of people overlook when talking about the number of civilian casualties in this war, is how many people Saddam was killing and torturing to death on a daily basis. There a lots of reports over here about people who returned to Iraq in the past 10 years, and were promptly murdered by elements of Saddam’s regime.

---

We never overlooked how many people Saddam was killing and torturing to death on a daily basis. One thing that almost everybody agreed on, is that Saddam IS a dictator, and that he should be removed. If you'd have to start a war on every dictator-ship in the world, you'd need another 200 years though.
Something that also is overlooked often, is that in Iraq for every soldier of the "coalition" (I never understood how someone can call a partnership between two countries a coalition), 9 civilians were killed. In WWII, it was exactly the opposite. 'Clean' war? 'Intelligent' weapons?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by darkes
One other interesting point is that whilst it is true that the majority of the population in EU is opposed to the war, this changes into a majority in favour of the war if you count the Eastern European states that are set to join the EU next year.

---

Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Estonia have a combined population of 62 million. Taking into account that roughly 70% of the population of the 15 EU-countries is against the war, and knowing that there are roughly 380 million of EU citizens, I'd say there's something wrong with your math.

70% of 380 million = 266 million people against the war, and 124 in favour of the war. Add those 62 million Eastern Europeans, and you have 266 million against and 'only' 186 in favour.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KorpDeath
Especially since they found "suicide bomber vests" in Iraq. So much for Saddam having no ties with terrorists, heh?

---

After 911, they also found "suicide bomber vests" in the possession of terrorists on American territory. So much for Bush having no ties with terrorists? Makes no sense to me...