Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq

Religions > Atheism > Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 5

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	03 Aug 2005 06:00:51 PM
Object:	Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/international/middleeast/03cnd-marines.html?hp&ex=1123128000&en=115db378a5cf6fb0&ei=5094&partner=homepage
14 U.S. Marines Killed in Iraq When Vehicle Hits a Huge Bomb
By DEXTER FILKINS
and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: August 3, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 3 - Fourteen marines were killed today when their
troop carrier struck a gigantic roadside bomb in the western town of
Haditha, marking one of the single deadliest attacks on American troops
since the invasion here in March 2003. An Iraqi civilian interpreter
working with the marines was also killed in the blast.
Articles by Vincent in National Review Online American officers said
the marines had been riding in an amphibious troop carrier "during
combat operations" on the southern end of the city at dawn today when
it struck the bomb. The explosion flipped the 31-ton troop carrier over
and caused it to burst into flames. It was not immediately clear how
many of the marines had died from the explosion or from the flames.
One marine was seriously wounded; everyone else on board was killed.
The attack offered new evidence to buttress the claims of American
officers here that insurgents in Iraq are building bigger and more
sophisticated bombs, some of which focus their blast in a single
direction.
The troop carrier, an amphibious vehicle, is designed for water-borne
assaults, and carries light armor. Even so, the vehicles are the
Marines' primary means of transporting troops and material in Iraq.
The attack brought the number of dead marines in Haditha to 20 in less
than two days. On Monday, guerrillas ambushed and killed a group of six
marine snipers who were moving through the town on foot. The snipers
had been deployed to hunt down and shoot insurgents trying to plant
roadside bombs like the one that exploded today.
Haditha is one of a string of cities that runs along the Euphrates
River from the Syrian border, and which American commanders believe
forms the network that shuttles insurgents from their sanctuaries
outside the country into Baghdad and other parts of the Iraqi
heartland.
The insurgent group, Ansar Al Sunna, claimed responsibility for the
ambush that killed the American snipers, and said in an Internet
posting today that it had captured one of the marines alive. The group
claimed it had killed eight Americans altogether, and that its fighters
had beheaded some of the Americans who were still alive after the
ambush.
There was no way to verify the claim that the group had taken an
American prisoner, and the posting did not contain any video or
photographs.
In the Internet message, Ansar Al Sunna's "military wing" promised that
a video of their American prisoner was forthcoming.
But later in the day, Ansar Al Sunna posted a video that apparently
depicted the attack on the snipers. The video shows what appears to be
two Humvees moving across the top of a desert ridge, and then, at
different times, six, and small figures walking in the desert off the
road.
"These are the crusaders," a caption on the video says.
Then the video, to the sound of a voice chanting "God is Great!" shows
three masked men shooting shells from atop a dune. Then the video shows
the body of what appears to be a dead American soldier, his shirtless
body burned and mangled.
The video zooms in on the soldier's face. Then a pair of hands reach
down and cut the soldier's dog tag from his neck. The closing frames
show an array of what appears to be captured American military
equipment, including machine guns and M-40 sniper rifles with scopes.
"Pray for us," a caption says at the end.
At a news conference at the Pentagon, Brig. Gen. Carter Ham denied that
any marines were in the custody of insurgents, saying that all of them
had been accounted for. He said there was "no indication" that any of
the marines killed on Monday had been beheaded.
American commanders did acknowledge that one of the marines caught in
Monday's ambush had become separated from the others, and that his body
was not found until later, about a mile away from the scene of the
ambush. That suggested that it was at least possible that one of the
marines had been captured alive by the insurgents and killed later.
General Ham did not rule out that possibility.
"We just don't know what happened," General Ham said.
A note sent out late today by the Marines in Iraq noted the existence
of the video purporting to show the dead American solider. The note
said the Marines were trying to determine whether it was authentic.
We are sorry that the family of the person shown in the video might be
subjected to such images," the unsigned note said. "This disregard for
all human life - Iraqi or American, men, women and even children - is a
trait of the criminals and insurgents we are fighting."
Articles by Vincent in National Review Online In the Internet posting,
Ansar Al Sunna said the insurgents had lain in wait for the Americans
for nine days, stepping up attacks on a nearby base so as to draw the
Americans into an ambush. The American base is near the Haditha Dam on
the Euphrates, a massive structure built during the time of Saddam
Hussein's rule.
The Americans said the marines caught in the ambush were members of
sniper teams going out to look for insurgents.
"The American marines fell into the trap," the Internet posting said.
As soon as the Americans got out of their vehicles, the posting said,
the insurgents surrounded them and ordered them to surrender. The
posting said the Americans started shooting, so the insurgents returned
fire.
That statement, also posted with Ansar Al Sunna, was inconsistent with
what was later shown on the video.
"After the attack the mujahedeen reached the marines, and some of them
were dead and the others were dying, so they beheaded those who were
still alive except for one, because he was not injured in the head,"
the message said. "So they took him a prisoner."
The Internet message said the insurgents were able to take away the
soldier and much of the Americans' equipment before American
helicopters arrived. On Tuesday, The Associated Press quoted witnesses
in Haditha as saying that masked men had come to the town's central
market passing out fliers boasting of the attack and brandishing
American military equipment they said had been taken from the dead
marines.
As for today's attack on the troop carrier, General Ham said it was not
clear whether the explosive was a mine - and thereby triggered on
impact - or whether it was detonated on command.
"We have seen over the past few months a general decline in the number
of improvised explosive device attacks," he said. "In volume they've
decreased, but the lethality has remained very, very high."
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for today's attack.
The attack today in Haditha follows at least half a dozen American
military offensives in Haditha and other parts of Anbar Province to
shut down that network. The previous operations have been met with
little resistance; the guerrillas have seemed to melt away, only to
mount attacks later on.
But an American officer said today that the most recent operation may
have been scoring some success, prompting the insurgents to strike
back. The Americans recently set up a base in Rawah, on the north side
of the Euphrates near the Syrian border, and moved an additional 1,600
troops to the area, substantially hindering the movement of insurgents
on both sides of the river, the American officer said.
Most of the marines killed over the past two days were part of the same
military reserve unit in Cleveland.
Today' attack was among the worst on American troops since the 2003
invasion. Last December, a suicide bomber struck a mess hall at an
American base near Mosul, killing 14 American servicemen and 4 American
contractors. In April 2004, up to 12 marines were killed when they were
attacked in the city of Ramadi.
Another marine was killed Monday in the nearby city of Hit when a
suicide bomber drove his car into a military convoy and blew himself
up. Hit is about 50 miles southeast from Haditha.
Responding to another Web posting claiming that a senior American
commander had been killed in Falluja, General Ham said, "Not to my
knowledge."
Dexter Filkins reported from Baghdad, Iraq, for this article, and Eric
Schmitt from Washington.
.

User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	04 Aug 2005 08:10:44 AM

On 4 Aug 2005 06:08:12 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:

Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
news:j193f15ggruf2c271n59oqlvfefhl03jhm@4ax.com:

The American soldier can and will win in Iraq - but only if people
like you let us.

But what will we win? Safety from terrorists?

Yes.

The ones who attacked us
weren't Iraqis, didn't train in Iraq, hadn't been to Iraq, and weren't
supported by Iraq.

And your point is?
Hint: chasing terrorists is a losing strategy. Or you can try looking
at a map of the Middle East and pondering the strategic implications.

Safety from Sadam's weapons? He had none, and
everyone who looked with open eyes knew that already.

Actually, they did not. In fact we made some unpleasant discoveries
about a bunker full of chemical mustard and VX that was supposedly
under UN seal.
And you are aware that US soldier have been injured by Saddam era
chemical weapons?

Freedom for the
Iraqis? Perhaps. But they may take that freedom and vote in an Islamic
fundamentalist regime.

And what makes you think that this is likely? I take it you have not
been paying attention to Iraqi politics.

Tell me, what are we fighting for? How will we know when we've won? You
seem to have answers that satisfy you. Nobody has given me answers.

The answers have been provided. Your failure to educate yourself on
the subject is not our fault.
BTW - what is your better solution to fix the social, religious,
political and economic issues that drive Islamic terrorism?
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	04 Aug 2005 12:55:47 PM

In article <1a44f1d2kfphuq2gao6sc891mgoe5st22k@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:

On 4 Aug 2005 06:08:12 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:

Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
news:j193f15ggruf2c271n59oqlvfefhl03jhm@4ax.com:

The American soldier can and will win in Iraq - but only if people
like you let us.

But what will we win? Safety from terrorists?

Yes.

I find that unlikely. Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorist
attacks on the US homeland. They have come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
and so on.

The ones who attacked us
weren't Iraqis, didn't train in Iraq, hadn't been to Iraq, and weren't
supported by Iraq.

And your point is?

Hint: chasing terrorists is a losing strategy. Or you can try looking
at a map of the Middle East and pondering the strategic implications.

You have to ***** about with "hints" and hopes, because if you stated
your case clearly it would be really obvious that conquering Iraq had
absolutely nothing to do with protecting the USA from terrorist attacks.

Safety from Sadam's weapons? He had none, and
everyone who looked with open eyes knew that already.

Actually, they did not. In fact we made some unpleasant discoveries
about a bunker full of chemical mustard and VX that was supposedly
under UN seal.

I never heard that one before. Cite please, because I think you are
making it up.

And you are aware that US soldier have been injured by Saddam era
chemical weapons?

Well, that justifies an invasion. Well done.

Freedom for the
Iraqis? Perhaps. But they may take that freedom and vote in an Islamic
fundamentalist regime.

And what makes you think that this is likely? I take it you have not
been paying attention to Iraqi politics.

That's fucking hilarious. The election came within a whisker of putting
fundamentalist loonies with strong sympathies towards the Iranian regime
in power, and according to reliable journalist Seymour Hersh that's
after some serious under-the-table efforts from the White House to rig a
palatable outcome. Iraq is, most probably, one honest ballot away from
being another Iran.

BTW - what is your better solution to fix the social, religious,
political and economic issues that drive Islamic terrorism?

I don't have a solution to fix the social, religious, political and
economic issues that drive the current mob you have in power, but I'm
still very much against bombing the crap out of Canada in the hope that
it somehow magically fixes the problem.
If you want to shoot some people to achieve a goal, you really ought to
be the one explaining how shooting those people will help. It's not our
job to come up with a better way, it's your job to justify the actions
of the side you support.

"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

Nice sig, but you can't live in denial forever. Trying to fight
terrorism while at the same time pretending that it doesn't arise for
recogniseable reasons is pure idiocy. The current crop of loonies need
to be shot, but if you want to prevent the next lot from appearing you
need to do more than just shoot people.
No, torturing people won't do it either.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.

User: "Michael Scott Brown"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	04 Aug 2005 01:44:41 PM

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-E7865C.03480605082005@news01.comindico.com.au...

But what will we win? Safety from terrorists?

Yes.

I find that unlikely. Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorist
attacks on the US homeland. They have come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
and so on.

The neocons are not targeting Iraq because *Iraq* supported terrorism.
Rather, they assert that the easiest road to achieving massive influence
over those nations and cultures that foster anti-western terrorism (with or
without government sympathy) runs through Iraq. Of course, these same
people believed there would be no insurgency, and being wildly pro-Israel,
the couldn't see *any* change that could possibly be made to happen
there....

It has nothing to do with protecting the US from terrorist attacks *by
Iraqis*, but transforming the stagnant middle east would have a very
positive effect. The islamic fundamentalists that yap about western
imperialism do so because they see the West's hand propping up the corrupt
leaders that are keeping them from having the theocracies that they believe
everyone in their countries secretly yearns for. By tearing at Western
support, they hope to simultaneously deprive their real target of its
foundation while inspiring with their bravery a revolution to overthrow
those leaders. Many people in the Arab world feel profoundly negative
about unjust American policies in the middle east, and about the corrupt
jackasses who hold the power in their nations, and so these radicals have a
lot of sympathy by virtue of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
However, that whole equation gets turned on its head if their societies
become free - now the extremists are not fighting their enemies, but
fighting to conquer *them* and _impose_ that Islamic Caliphate (which looks
a lot less attractive once you experience it). And that is not going to go
over well.
That's the argument, at any rate. I suggest you learn something about
what you're discussing if you intend to do it in public.
-Michael
.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	04 Aug 2005 09:04:31 PM

In article <tmtIe.558$Wi6.162@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-E7865C.03480605082005@news01.comindico.com.au...

But what will we win? Safety from terrorists?

Yes.

I find that unlikely. Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorist
attacks on the US homeland. They have come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
and so on.

The neocons are not targeting Iraq because *Iraq* supported terrorism.

Although they sure tried to link the two ideas in the mind of the public
to jack up support for the invasion, you have to admit.

Rather, they assert that the easiest road to achieving massive influence
over those nations and cultures that foster anti-western terrorism (with or
without government sympathy) runs through Iraq. Of course, these same
people believed there would be no insurgency, and being wildly pro-Israel,
the couldn't see *any* change that could possibly be made to happen
there....

It's amazing what people can convince themselves of. It would be
wonderful if I was proved wrong, but I think it is clear by now that the
road through Iraq has not led to any such place.

It has nothing to do with protecting the US from terrorist attacks *by
Iraqis*, but transforming the stagnant middle east would have a very
positive effect. The islamic fundamentalists that yap about western
imperialism do so because they see the West's hand propping up the corrupt
leaders that are keeping them from having the theocracies that they believe
everyone in their countries secretly yearns for. By tearing at Western
support, they hope to simultaneously deprive their real target of its
foundation while inspiring with their bravery a revolution to overthrow
those leaders. Many people in the Arab world feel profoundly negative
about unjust American policies in the middle east, and about the corrupt
jackasses who hold the power in their nations, and so these radicals have a
lot of sympathy by virtue of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

However, that whole equation gets turned on its head if their societies
become free - now the extremists are not fighting their enemies, but
fighting to conquer *them* and _impose_ that Islamic Caliphate (which looks
a lot less attractive once you experience it). And that is not going to go
over well.

That's the argument, at any rate. I suggest you learn something about
what you're discussing if you intend to do it in public.

I guess it comes down to whether you think the people making decisions
in the USA right now are utter idiots with the best of intentions and no
sense of proportion, or moderately idiotic people who simply don't care
about the harm they cause who use terrorism as an excuse for an
ill-conceived oil war.
If you go with the first story, the USA might well have decided to spend
billions invading Iraq because they honestly thought that was a sane and
cost-effective way to stop terrorist attacks. I do not buy it, but you
are welcome to. If you go with the second story, preventing terrorism
is just one of the long list of silly excuses.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.

User: "Michael Scott Brown"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	05 Aug 2005 02:32:23 AM

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-8C5269.11531305082005@news01.comindico.com.au...

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

The neocons are not targeting Iraq because *Iraq* supported

terrorism.

Although they sure tried to link the two ideas in the mind of the public
to jack up support for the invasion, you have to admit.

Admit? I bloody well condemnn the fuckers for their shameless abuse of
power. If they couldn't convince the majority of Americans to support their
true intentions, where the ***** do they get off implementing them through
deception? That's unacceptable, totally arrogant, and *utterly*
undemocratic. I'd go so far as to call it treasonous, in fact. *Dictators*
and lie to their citizens.

Rather, they assert that the easiest road to achieving massive influence
over those nations and cultures that foster anti-western terrorism (with

without government sympathy) runs through Iraq. Of course, these same
people believed there would be no insurgency, and being wildly

pro-Israel,

the couldn't see *any* change that could possibly be made to happen
there....

It's amazing what people can convince themselves of. It would be
wonderful if I was proved wrong, but I think it is clear by now that the
road through Iraq has not led to any such place.

Clear? How so? The kids haven't even finished hacking out a
constitution, and you're ready to declare that they will never succeed at
creating a nation? That's absurd. The Bushies wildly underestimated the
challenge and costs involved (which really pisses me off) - and because of
that the transition is very uncomfortable *now* - but it could very well be
a case of "it will get worse before it gets better". Time is on our side in
this one. Every bomb that a jihadist detonates, killing innocent civilians,
is another testament to the Islamo-nazis' hypocrisy. The more they fight,
the more they delegitimize their movement in the entire Arab world. On top
of that, there are eventually going to be enough troops in action there to
actually control the territory - at which point the insurgency is done for
(hence the popularity of taking out recruits).
Further, the (ostensible) Syrian pullout from Lebanon says rather a lot
about whether having 100,000 American troops on their border can be used as
a successful negotiating tool.
I'm not convinced that this is the best way to go about reshaping the
middle east even it were "done right"; I'm certain we went about it the
wrong way (undermanned and w/o allies) and at a foolish time (what was the
rush?) - but that said, it's much too early to suggest that the effort will
fail in achieving its ultimate goals. The only accurate observation is that
the situation is quite a cockup compared to what it might have been if less
theology were involved in the planning.

I guess it comes down to whether you think the people making decisions
in the USA right now are utter idiots with the best of intentions and no
sense of proportion,

Tsk. If we had invaded the place with the right force levels, you'd be
hailing them as geniuses. The policy wonks aren't stupid (though they are
not without their blind spots), and there are some very cogent arguments for
this approach to the situation (which America deserved to have debated).
However, having borked some key details on the execution side, it's hard for
amateurs to sort the intended policy from the current situation. You must
bear in mind that a key assumption was that we would be able to turn over a
functioning infrastructure to a happy people singing "ding dong, the *****
is dead" - the idea that they would tear apart the remaining foundations of
their state in an orgy of looting and unleash massive factional violence
over who next gets to be in charge wasn't on the radar. That's not what
happened when we liberated France!
<sighs>
-Michael
.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	05 Aug 2005 03:48:51 AM

In article <bCEIe.1721$WD.1072@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-8C5269.11531305082005@news01.comindico.com.au...

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
Although they sure tried to link the two ideas in the mind of the public
to jack up support for the invasion, you have to admit.

We're on the same page.

It's amazing what people can convince themselves of. It would be
wonderful if I was proved wrong, but I think it is clear by now that the
road through Iraq has not led to any such place.

Clear? How so? The kids haven't even finished hacking out a
constitution, and you're ready to declare that they will never succeed at
creating a nation? That's absurd.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that it hasn't led to any
decrease in the risk of terrorism to the USA or to anyone else, nor does
it seem likely to. The reverse if anything.

I guess it comes down to whether you think the people making decisions
in the USA right now are utter idiots with the best of intentions and no
sense of proportion,

Tsk. If we had invaded the place with the right force levels, you'd be
hailing them as geniuses.

Effective arseholes, perhaps. Powell at least knew how to do it right,
if it were to be done at all.

The policy wonks aren't stupid (though they are
not without their blind spots), and there are some very cogent arguments for
this approach to the situation (which America deserved to have debated).
However, having borked some key details on the execution side, it's hard for
amateurs to sort the intended policy from the current situation.

My own feeling is that there were even more cogent arguments for giving
peace a chance in this instance.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.

User: "Michael Scott Brown"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	05 Aug 2005 11:19:35 AM

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-8254E4.18410605082005@news01.comindico.com.au...

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

Clear? How so? The kids haven't even finished hacking out a
constitution, and you're ready to declare that they will never succeed

creating a nation? That's absurd.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that it hasn't led to any
decrease in the risk of terrorism to the USA or to anyone else, nor does
it seem likely to. The reverse if anything.

Consider this: any military action, anywhere, anywhen, would have
produced a reaction that would inspire American-hating radicals. So you
have two choices in the long run - do nothing, because you are afraid of a
temporary increase in terrorism, and experience terrorist attacks at
whatever amounts to their "steady state" rate ... forever ... or act,
experience a spike in terrorism, and then see the post-intervention
terrorism rate greatly reduced or eliminated.
Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the idea of being deterred from acting on
the world stage because of a few murderous thugs.

The policy wonks aren't stupid (though they are
not without their blind spots), and there are some very cogent arguments

for

this approach to the situation (which America deserved to have debated).
However, having borked some key details on the execution side, it's hard

for

amateurs to sort the intended policy from the current situation.

My own feeling is that there were even more cogent arguments for giving
peace a chance in this instance.

Nah. The cogent argument was for sacking Iraq *later* (and with allies
that mattered). But there was never, ever going to be a time when Iraq was
allowed to run free like the buffalo again; Hussein's ambitions were such
that he could never be trusted to play nice. So the question you have to
ask is - if you believe that the no-fly-zone border patrol arrangement was
untenable in perpetuity, then how many more years *are* you going to let him
hold his citizens hostage? Iraq had to experience "regime change" - and it
was entirely up to us as to when that would happen.
Naturally, of course, such actions *had* to be made in time for the US
election cycle! Gotta have that war victory for the re-election!
<grits teeth>
-Michael
.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	05 Aug 2005 09:54:23 PM

In article <rkMIe.1628$RS.384@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-8254E4.18410605082005@news01.comindico.com.au...

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

Clear? How so? The kids haven't even finished hacking out a
constitution, and you're ready to declare that they will never succeed

creating a nation? That's absurd.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that it hasn't led to any
decrease in the risk of terrorism to the USA or to anyone else, nor does
it seem likely to. The reverse if anything.

I think that's presenting the issue as a false dichotomy, because not
everyone in the world is either waving a US flag or strapping bombs to
themselves.
There certainly are people who would hate the USA wherever it used its
military, but there are also people whose reaction would have depended
on where, when and how the military was used. The current clusterfuck
is likely to have alienated more people than was necessary.

My own feeling is that there were even more cogent arguments for giving
peace a chance in this instance.

Do you think so? Hussein waited for Gillespie to give him the green
light before he invaded Kuwait, and he seemed to be making an honest
attempt to extricate himself from Kuwait peacefully once he realised the
USA was not going to look the other way. He also had provocation, given
that Kuwait was drilling sideways under the Iraqi border to nick oil.
He's a revolting human being by any standards, but "Saddam-as-mad-dog"
seems to me to have been a creation of propaganda. As far as I can tell
he would have loved to conquer the entire Middle East but he knew his
limitations. As such while he was a monster I can't see how he can be
construed as having been a credible threat to his neighbours.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.

User: "Michael Scott Brown"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	06 Aug 2005 01:12:35 AM

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-343F7C.12463006082005@news01.comindico.com.au...

temporary increase in terrorism, and experience terrorist attacks at
whatever amounts to their "steady state" rate ... forever ... or act,
experience a spike in terrorism, and then see the post-intervention
terrorism rate greatly reduced or eliminated.
Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the idea of being deterred from acting

the world stage because of a few murderous thugs.

I think that's presenting the issue as a false dichotomy, because not
everyone in the world is either waving a US flag or strapping bombs to
themselves.

I think you're missing the point. A spike in terrorism is a certain
result of agitation by the international networks who we are tearing down -
what I'm talking about is not simply a spontaneous increase in "I'm so
pissed at the US I gotta go kill somebody" temper tantrums (though such
frustration is certainly easily tapped by jihadi propaganda machines when
they recruit).

There certainly are people who would hate the USA wherever it used its
military, but there are also people whose reaction would have depended
on where, when and how the military was used.

Given the propaganda machines driving the jihadis, I'm not sure that
matters enough. There is really nothing that we can do that could not be
turned into a rallying cry for some faction of the nihilists. A free Iraqi
democracy will be used to inflame the theocrat islamo-facists. A shiite
Iraqi pseudo theocracy will inflame the Sunni islamo-facists. A progressive
and pluralistic islamic theocracy will inflame the wahabbi fucktards. A
failed Iraqi state inflames everyone because the destroyer crusaders
pillaged and left these poor people to rot. And so on - no matter what the
outcome (unless we put Al Queda in charge of the place, of course), the PR
machine will recruit more soldiers from the appropriately disaffected
faction. They *must* - for if America is allowed to intervene in ways that
prevent their creation of the mighty caliphate without any pain ...

Your definition of "seemed" is a lot different from history's. And the
'green light' story seems to have taken on mythological aspects. Why on
earth would be green light an invasion if we didn't want an invasion (to the
degree that we would risk American lives to repel it?).

He also had provocation, given
that Kuwait was drilling sideways under the Iraqi border to nick oil.

To *invade their country*, destroy their oil wells, butcher their
people, and try to tell the world that Kuwait had always been their
province?
No. That's like saying that burning my house down was a result of
"provocation" because I took your parking spot at the office

He's a revolting human being by any standards, but "Saddam-as-mad-dog"
seems to me to have been a creation of propaganda.

If you read about his sons, you'd know it was dead-on accurate. Only a
mad dog creates rabid spawn like that. Hussein was a crafty and devious
megalomaniac.

As far as I can tell
he would have loved to conquer the entire Middle East but he knew his
limitations.

If he knew his limitations, he would not have spent all those lives in
Iran.

As such while he was a monster I can't see how he can be
construed as having been a credible threat to his neighbours.

Then you're pitifully uninformed.
-Michael
.

User: "Joseph"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	06 Aug 2005 10:56:53 AM

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:nxYIe.1950$RS.1333@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-343F7C.12463006082005@news01.comindico.com.au...

temporary increase in terrorism, and experience terrorist attacks
at whatever amounts to their "steady state" rate ... forever ... or
act, experience a spike in terrorism, and then see the
post-intervention terrorism rate greatly reduced or eliminated.
Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the idea of being deterred from
acting

the world stage because of a few murderous thugs.

I think that's presenting the issue as a false dichotomy, because not
everyone in the world is either waving a US flag or strapping bombs
to themselves.

I think you're missing the point. A spike in terrorism is a
certain
result of agitation by the international networks who we are tearing
down - what I'm talking about is not simply a spontaneous increase in
"I'm so pissed at the US I gotta go kill somebody" temper tantrums
(though such frustration is certainly easily tapped by jihadi
propaganda machines when they recruit).

And which violent offensive international networks do more terrorism to
actual individuals? It is State projection of all forms of power, or
radical, ideological, underground in most areas, violent networks.
Authority in radical Islam is derived from Allah. Allah can not literally
terrorize me. Only his followers can (or His ideas). And Islam's nature
is non-hierarchal and decentralized. I cannot say the same for the modern
state. Their politicians are quite real, and have a power from the top-
down mindset. Hierarchy, inequality, and conformity to many "laws"
compared to the Islamic idea of submission to the one law of Allah. There
is no official authority who decides whether a person is accepted into,
or dismissed from, the community of believers, known as the Ummah
("family" or "nation"). Islam is open to all, regardless of race, age,
gender, or previous beliefs. It is enough to believe in the central
beliefs of Islam. The Qur'an contains both injunctions to respect other
religions, and to fight and subdue unbelievers. And the Muslim interprets
that HIMSELF rather than in a catholic or universal legalistic sense. And
at least the radical Muslims may ignore you allowing you the chance at
"salvation", or the will of Allah, or leave you alive because Hell is so
much worse. Besides, I can hide not believing in a single god better than
obedience to all the laws and regulation of modern governments. And
traditional Islamic (state) civilization was far less opressive to the
individual than what we have now in much of the West politically. The
mighty caliphate is less destructive to the individual than the empire.

There certainly are people who would hate the USA wherever it used
its military, but there are also people whose reaction would have
depended on where, when and how the military was used.

Given the propaganda machines driving the jihadis, I'm not sure
that
matters enough. There is really nothing that we can do that could not
be turned into a rallying cry for some faction of the nihilists. A
free Iraqi democracy will be used to inflame the theocrat
islamo-facists. A shiite Iraqi pseudo theocracy will inflame the
Sunni islamo-facists. A progressive and pluralistic islamic theocracy
will inflame the wahabbi fucktards. A failed Iraqi state inflames
everyone because the destroyer crusaders pillaged and left these poor
people to rot. And so on - no matter what the outcome (unless we put
Al Queda in charge of the place, of course), the PR machine will
recruit more soldiers from the appropriately disaffected faction.
They *must* - for if America is allowed to intervene in ways that
prevent their creation of the mighty caliphate without any pain ...

Could you have used any more neo-conservative flaky buzzwords? You want
to know who is closer to the Thousand Year Reich. Look at the imperialist
and capitalistic foot-soldiers both civilian and military in their march
for their New World Order of modern "values". Extremists who want a
return to orthodox pre-modern Islam do not come close to the Nazis.
Fascism was forged in ancient Rome, not traditional Mecca. Fortunately,
the West has more to offer than what those patriots are shoving down the
throats of those in the Middle East right now.

.

User: "Michael Scott Brown"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	06 Aug 2005 01:04:40 PM

"Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96AA798DAE774619void@199.45.49.11...
[snip]
Aww, how sweet, another incoherent kookrant.
Go back to your box, you myopic mouse-turd.
-Michael
.

User: "Joseph"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	06 Aug 2005 01:30:42 PM

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:YY6Je.2092$RS.2006@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

"Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96AA798DAE774619void@199.45.49.11...
[snip]

Aww, how sweet, another incoherent kookrant.

Go back to your box, you myopic mouse-turd.

-Michael

Incoherent? Like condemning neoconservatives, while you are using the very
same neoconservative linguistic terminology they use? Plus, your political
opinions you spew are like good cop neoconservative to Bushite bad cop
neoconservative. By the way, I don't take orders from a bullying
"guardian" who has pretensions of being a rationalist. You *embody*
fraudulence.
.

User: "Michael Scott Brown"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	06 Aug 2005 02:08:20 PM

"Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96AA93A20E04D619void@199.45.49.11...

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in

Aww, how sweet, another incoherent kookrant.
Go back to your box, you myopic mouse-turd.

Incoherent?

You obviously didn't read your post. Which is tricky, seeing as you were
writing it. I can only assume that you go off your meds for even a few
minutes and just start ranting at random.
Hey - have you bought that shotgun yet? I can give you the prescription:
Take orally. One dose.

Like condemning neoconservatives, while you are using the very
same neoconservative linguistic terminology they use?

You might want to consider the wildly inappropriate breaches of logic
that are implicit in your statement. On second thought, don't bother. The
issue is clearly beyond you.

Plus, your political opinions you spew are like good cop neoconservative

to Bushite bad cop

neoconservative.

What political opinions have I spewed, exactly?

By the way, I don't take orders from a bullying
"guardian" who has pretensions of being a rationalist.

So you're *not* going to kill yourself?
How do you square that declaration with previous impotent whinings about
how you just might, if someone told you to, and thus it was veryveryvery bad
to tell people that?
Hypocrisy, much?

You *embody* fraudulence.

Prove the fraud, *****.
You can't. You're just masturbating in public again. Please stop. Do it
for baby jesus. He loves you, you know.
-Michael
.

User: "Joseph"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	06 Aug 2005 02:43:43 PM

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:EU7Je.2117$Wi6.782@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

"Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96AA93A20E04D619void@199.45.49.11...

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in

Aww, how sweet, another incoherent kookrant.
Go back to your box, you myopic mouse-turd.

Incoherent?

You obviously didn't read your post. Which is tricky, seeing as
you were
writing it. I can only assume that you go off your meds for even a
few minutes and just start ranting at random.
Hey - have you bought that shotgun yet? I can give you the
prescription:
Take orally. One dose.

Keep on guessing, *****. You should be embarrassed you waste time thinking
about me... and getting it so wrong in public. But you never are ashamed of
your anal-retentive bullying on Usenet are you, troll?

Like condemning neoconservatives, while you are using the very
same neoconservative linguistic terminology they use?

You might want to consider the wildly inappropriate breaches of
logic
that are implicit in your statement. On second thought, don't bother.
The issue is clearly beyond you.

I'll admit the post was a bit disorganized, but it was in response to your
blatant hypocrisy. Give me better material to work with, Mikey. That is
going to be difficult given your track record.

Plus, your political opinions you spew are like good cop
neoconservative

to Bushite bad cop

neoconservative.

What political opinions have I spewed, exactly?

Read the thread again. Your political opinion, about Hussein having to be
removed by America, is one example. Your only complaint was Bush did it too
early, and executed it wrong. Neoconservative all the way, but you disguise
that by saying he *lied*. No *****! He's a politician. And you called him a
dictator for that, kook. I'll mention your use of Islamo-nazis; please
don't abuse the English language like that again. Been reading too many
neoconservative propaganda magazines like Commentary and the Weekly
Standard, MSB?

By the way, I don't take orders from a bullying
"guardian" who has pretensions of being a rationalist.

So you're *not* going to kill yourself?
How do you square that declaration with previous impotent whinings
about
how you just might, if someone told you to, and thus it was
veryveryvery bad to tell people that?
Hypocrisy, much?

I was not talking about myself, dissembler.

You *embody* fraudulence.

Prove the fraud, *****.
You can't. You're just masturbating in public again. Please stop.
Do it
for baby jesus. He loves you, you know.

-Michael

Your use of Christianity as an insult against me shows your fraudulence.
You think Christianity is wacky, and you should know such insipid insults
don't bother me. So, you are a repetitive dolt as well.
.

User: "Michael Scott Brown"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	06 Aug 2005 08:38:04 PM

"Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96AAA00338CA619void@199.45.49.11...

What political opinions have I spewed, exactly?

Read the thread again. Your political opinion, about Hussein having to be
removed by America, is one example.

<raises hand> by *America*?

Your only complaint was Bush did it too early, and executed it wrong.
Neoconservative all the way, but you disguise that by saying he *lied*.

So ... only a neoconservative could possibly conclude that the Iraqi
regime had to go, and that the way the Bushies went about it was flawed in
ways both practical and ethical? Yet we can ... *disguise* ..
"neoconservatism" .. by finding fault with Bush's undemocratic approach?
<shakes head sadly>
Joseph, you continue to utterly fail to rise above this "fucking moron"
thing you've got going.
-Michael
.

User: "Joseph"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	06 Aug 2005 10:34:34 PM

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:0CdJe.2444$WD.785@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

"Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96AAA00338CA619void@199.45.49.11...

What political opinions have I spewed, exactly?

Read the thread again. Your political opinion, about Hussein having
to be removed by America, is one example.

<raises hand> by *America*?

Yes, you also mentioned allies that mattered. Of course you obfuscate by
not clarifying who you wanted on the team to steamroll Iraq. It probably
still includes the army of the poodle Tony Blair. Of course the *people*
of most of the world opposed this war, especially within the Coalition
of the Willing. How democratic... did you want help from the nearby Arab
despotic regimes? I know what their populations think about evading
another already devastated Arab country.

Your only complaint was Bush did it too early, and executed it
wrong.
Neoconservative all the way, but you disguise that by saying he
*lied*.

So ... only a neoconservative could possibly conclude that the
Iraqi
regime had to go, and that the way the Bushies went about it was
flawed in ways both practical and ethical? Yet we can ... *disguise*
.. "neoconservatism" .. by finding fault with Bush's undemocratic
approach?

<shakes head sadly>

No, I am not stating how supporters of the Iraq War have to be
neoconservatives or anything of the sort. I am specifically making a
judgment about *you* based upon your posts. Sure, there are other
possible interpretations, but you refuse to reveal your politics, so
tough!
Occam's Razor is a pretty good guide here, since your posts in this
thread reek of neoconservative rhetoric, terms, and intentions. Combing
Nazism and radical Islam so intellectually dishonest.. so
neoconservative. The outward pursuit of jihad has always been accepted
within Islam subject to many interpretations. Of course the greater
jihad is the fight against oneself. And warfare against mostly
non-Muslims who are killing Muslims in the "house of God" has been
considered mainstream in Islamic history. Sure, there are some real
murderers in the bunch in the Iraq insurgency right now but only 5-10%
are even foreign radical Islamic fighters. And most civilian deaths are
criminal gang related... if you don't count the Americans.
A series of several polls have been conducted to ascertain the position
of the Iraqi public further on the insurgency and the Coalition
occupation. All of the polls seem to consistently find the following:
* A large minority, if not a majority, of Sunni Arabs consider armed
attacks on U.S forces legitimate and justified resistance. * The
greatest support for resistance is in al-Anbar province. * The
majority of Iraqis disapprove of the presence of coalition forces.
* A majority of both Sunnis and Shiites want an end to the
occupation as soon as possible, although Sunnis are opposed to the
occupation in somewhat greater margins. [15]
Polls conducted in June 2005 suggest even more anti-occupation
sentiment; most alarming to American policymakers is rising support for
the insurgency. According to the Boston Globe (10 June 2005): "a recent
internal poll conducted for the US-led coalition found that nearly 45
percent of the population supported the insurgent attacks, making
accurate intelligence difficult to obtain. Only 15 percent of those
polled said they strongly supported the US-led coalition."[16] Demands
for U.S. withdrawal have also been signed on by one third of Iraq's
Parliament.[17]
It is the right of any people to fight against those who would rule,
conquer, and exploit them. The US had its chance to let the people of
Iraq get rid of Saddam post-Gulf War. Bush the First let, nay, helped
Saddam crush the revolt.

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote

Nah. The cogent argument was for sacking Iraq *later* (and with
allies
that mattered). But there was never, ever going to be a time when
Iraq was allowed to run free like the buffalo again; Hussein's
ambitions were such that he could never be trusted to play nice. So
the question you have to ask is - if you believe that the no-fly-zone
border patrol arrangement was untenable in perpetuity, then how many
more years *are* you going to let him hold his citizens hostage? Iraq
had to experience "regime change" - and it was entirely up to us as to
when that would happen.

I find this view disgusting. You sir have no moral right to determine
which regime has to fall, and so who has to die. And you dare to talk
about democracy and what has to be done by imposing it on others by
force?
And since you consider part of the Bush Administration treasonous in
lying to justify their war to the people, I will disagree with that. You
know where the real treason came from (if one cares about such things).
Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall
refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as
the "Prohibition of Aggression." For the use of force other than in self
defense, it is absolute without the positive sanction of the security
council under Article 42.
And since the UN Charter was signed by the US that means it carries the
weight of the Constitutional authority. The Bush Administration and ALL
the soldiers who invaded Iraq broke the supreme law of the land. They
broke their oath to defend the Constitution. They don't even have any
moral ground to stand on, for Iraq was no threat. It's the old excuse of
I was just following orders. I give those who killed and oppressed no
such excuse.
.

User: "Michael Scott Brown"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	07 Aug 2005 03:08:22 AM

"Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96AAEFD7D3C04619void@199.45.49.11...

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in

What political opinions have I spewed, exactly?

Read the thread again. Your political opinion, about Hussein having
to be removed by America, is one example.

<raises hand> by *America*?

You are ranting at random again. Please strike yourself in the head
with a heavy object and try again.

Occam's Razor is a pretty good guide here, since your posts in this
thread reek of neoconservative rhetoric, terms, and intentions.

<raises hand> Of course, this would have nothing to do with the fact
that MSB is explaining the neoconservative perspective to people who believe
crackpot theories about administration motives!
My gods, Joesph - you're a fucking *monument* to the potential for human
stupidity.

Combing Nazism and radical Islam so intellectually dishonest.. so
neoconservative.

Intellectually dishonest is neoconservative? Calling attention to the
xenophobic simliarities between Islamic and Nazi tyrants is "dishonest"?

The outward pursuit of jihad has always been accepted
within Islam subject to many interpretations. Of course the greater
jihad is the fight against oneself. And warfare against mostly
non-Muslims who are killing Muslims in the "house of God" has been
considered mainstream in Islamic history. Sure, there are some real
murderers in the bunch in the Iraq insurgency right now but only 5-10%
are even foreign radical Islamic fighters. And most civilian deaths are
criminal gang related... if you don't count the Americans.

Ooh! Ranting at random again! DANCE, MONKEY-ANARCHIST! DANCE!

It is the right of any people to fight against those who would rule,
conquer, and exploit them. The US had its chance to let the people of
Iraq get rid of Saddam post-Gulf War. Bush the First let, nay, helped
Saddam crush the revolt.

Helped? Tsk. Chose not to stop <> help. Please, stop being an idiot in
public. The failure of the US to live up to the promises it made is enough
of a blight on our history as it is without you fucking up the story (which
can be summed up in two words: "fucking Turks").

the question you have to ask is - if you believe that the no-fly-zone
border patrol arrangement was untenable in perpetuity, then how many
more years *are* you going to let him hold his citizens hostage? Iraq
had to experience "regime change" - and it was entirely up to us as to
when that would happen.

I find this view disgusting. You sir have no moral right to determine
which regime has to fall, and so who has to die.

Actually, yes I do. Morality depends on the person, *fuckwit*. My
morality is quite supportive of confrontation, and is quite capable of
identifying people that do indeed have to die. This whole "human life is
sacred" thing is horseshit.

And you dare to talk about democracy and what has to be done by imposing

it on others by

force?

Ranting at random again. Among your other mistakes, perhaps you can
identify the part of the American intervention in Iraq that involves "vote
or we kill you"? The situation is painful enough without you FUCKING UP THE
STORY.

And since you consider part of the Bush Administration treasonous in
lying to justify their war to the people, I will disagree with that. You
know where the real treason came from (if one cares about such things).

I do? Fascinating...

Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall
refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as
the "Prohibition of Aggression." For the use of force other than in self
defense, it is absolute without the positive sanction of the security
council under Article 42.

You're a very bad lawyer, Joseph. Iraq attacked US forces repeatedly
since it was expelled from Kuwait, thus abrogating the truce. The original
war the Council *did* authorize *never ended*.
-Michael
.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	07 Aug 2005 04:19:05 AM

In article <WjjJe.2591$RS.1014@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

You're a very bad lawyer, Joseph. Iraq attacked US forces repeatedly
since it was expelled from Kuwait, thus abrogating the truce. The original
war the Council *did* authorize *never ended*.

Actually the UN is the one who gets to decide if the cease-fire
agreement is broken, not the USA or any other member of the original
alliance.
That is why the USA went through the whole song and dance to try to
convince the UN that Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire agreement
so the *UN* would authorise a war. Because the USA had absolutely no
legal standing to do so. Never did, never has.
The no-fly zones were also about as blatant a breach of the cease-fire
agreement as you can get.
Whether or not you think the conquest of Iraq was a good idea, the USA
just isn't on the right side of international law when it comes to Iraq.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.

User: "Michael Scott Brown"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	07 Aug 2005 04:32:00 AM

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-0270DA.19112007082005@news01.comindico.com.au...

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

You're a very bad lawyer, Joseph. Iraq attacked US forces

repeatedly

since it was expelled from Kuwait, thus abrogating the truce. The

original

war the Council *did* authorize *never ended*.

Actually the UN is the one who gets to decide if the cease-fire
agreement is broken, not the USA or any other member of the original
alliance.

Being shot at ... not an abrogation of a cease fire.
Sure.

That is why the USA went through the whole song and dance to try to
convince the UN that Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire agreement
so the *UN* would authorise a war.

Um, that's not what the US tried to do. The US attempted to get the UN
to enforce its WMD resolutions ... with prejudice, as it were. There is a
huge PR difference between "the entire world" deciding Iraq is done, and the
United States defending itself against a pissant.
-Michael
.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	07 Aug 2005 06:34:26 AM

In article <kykJe.2328$Wi6.1635@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-0270DA.19112007082005@news01.comindico.com.au...

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

You're a very bad lawyer, Joseph. Iraq attacked US forces

repeatedly

since it was expelled from Kuwait, thus abrogating the truce. The

original

war the Council *did* authorize *never ended*.

Actually the UN is the one who gets to decide if the cease-fire
agreement is broken, not the USA or any other member of the original
alliance.

Being shot at ... not an abrogation of a cease fire.
Sure.

The UN is the one that "remains seized of the issue", however.
Australia doesn't get to say the cease fire is over. The UK doesn't.
The USA doesn't. The UN does, and until it says it is over it is not
over.

That is why the USA went through the whole song and dance to try to
convince the UN that Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire agreement
so the *UN* would authorise a war.

Yes, it is what the US tried to do, and why.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.

User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	07 Aug 2005 08:25:17 PM

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:34:26 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

You keep saying this. Can you please tell us why the UN should have
any say in the matter?
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
.

User: "Michael Scott Brown"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	07 Aug 2005 08:33:08 PM

"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:34:26 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

You keep saying this. Can you please tell us why the UN should have
any say in the matter?

Particularly when the parties involved are shooting at one another!
-Michael
.

User: "Joseph"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	07 Aug 2005 10:34:20 PM

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:oDyJe.2878$RS.825@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote in message

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:34:26 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

The UN is the one that "remains seized of the issue", however.
Australia doesn't get to say the cease fire is over. The UK
doesn't. The USA doesn't. The UN does, and until it says it is over
it is not over.

You keep saying this. Can you please tell us why the UN should have
any say in the matter?

Particularly when the parties involved are shooting at one
another!

-Michael

"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote in message

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:34:26 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

The UN is the one that "remains seized of the issue", however.
Australia doesn't get to say the cease fire is over. The UK
doesn't. The USA doesn't. The UN does, and until it says it is over
it is not over.

You keep saying this. Can you please tell us why the UN should have
any say in the matter?

Particularly when the parties involved are shooting at one
another!

-Michael

Here's an opinion from a member of Institute for Policy Studies.
http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/replytobush.htm
Here's the actual UN Security Council resolution 687 which established the
formal cease-fire that Iraq signed.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/scres91.htm
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?
OpenElement
Some noteworthy sections.
Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty,
territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq, and
noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait
under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence
in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph 8 of
resolution 686 (1991),
B
5....
6. Notes that as soon as the Secretary-General notifies the Council of the
completion of the deployment of the United Nations observer unit, the
conditions will be established for the Member States cooperating with
Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military
presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686 (1991);
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-
General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the above
provisions, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and
the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678
(1990);
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps
as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to
secure peace and security in the region.

.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	07 Aug 2005 10:12:42 PM

In article <oDyJe.2878$RS.825@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:34:26 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

You keep saying this. Can you please tell us why the UN should have
any say in the matter?

Particularly when the parties involved are shooting at one another!

Because that's what the law says? The relevant international law is
that *only* the UN may start a war of aggression with the intent to
conquer a nation.
If you are in Kuwait and an Iraqi battery fires at you, you can shoot
back at it. You can even, although the case is more tenuous, take out
an Iraqi battery that you think will shoot at you over the border later,
say if they have built it with a dirty big gun pointed straight at your
oil fields or something. The same of course applies to a US plane
violating Iraqi airspace. Nothing illegal about shooting at an imminent
military threat, or a military unit in your territory uninvited.
However absolutely nothing in the cease-fire provisions that ended the
operation to boot Iraq from Kuwait, nor in the law regarding pre-emptive
self defence, empowers anyone whatsoever to decide they can roll over a
sovereign nation and install a government more to their liking.
I realise that a popular attitude in the USA is "The rule of law doesn't
apply to us, we're the good guys". That doesn't change what the law is,
though.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.

User: "Joseph"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	07 Aug 2005 10:48:23 PM

Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote in
news:me-AAE4BB.13045408082005@news01.comindico.com.au:

In article <oDyJe.2878$RS.825@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote in message

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:34:26 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net>
wrote:

The UN is the one that "remains seized of the issue", however.
Australia doesn't get to say the cease fire is over. The UK
doesn't. The USA doesn't. The UN does, and until it says it is
over it is not over.

You keep saying this. Can you please tell us why the UN should
have any say in the matter?

Particularly when the parties involved are shooting at one
another!

Because that's what the law says? The relevant international law is
that *only* the UN may start a war of aggression with the intent to
conquer a nation.

If you are in Kuwait and an Iraqi battery fires at you, you can shoot
back at it. You can even, although the case is more tenuous, take out
an Iraqi battery that you think will shoot at you over the border
later, say if they have built it with a dirty big gun pointed straight
at your oil fields or something. The same of course applies to a US
plane violating Iraqi airspace. Nothing illegal about shooting at an
imminent military threat, or a military unit in your territory
uninvited.

However absolutely nothing in the cease-fire provisions that ended the
operation to boot Iraq from Kuwait, nor in the law regarding
pre-emptive self defence, empowers anyone whatsoever to decide they
can roll over a sovereign nation and install a government more to
their liking.

I realise that a popular attitude in the USA is "The rule of law
doesn't apply to us, we're the good guys". That doesn't change what
the law is, though.

Well said. I don't know why this is a difficult issue. Some of the
Coalition's governmental leaders don't even believe the ***** that
this invasion was legal, and pretty much admit it in public when
confronted. Well, Bush keeps his mouth shut; a wise decision given his
propensity to step in it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003
_invasion_of_Iraq#Legality_of_the_invasion
On 28 April 2005, the UK government published the full advice given by
the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith on 7 March 2003 on the legality of
the war. The publication of this document followed the leaking of the
summary to the press the day before. In a Labour press conference, Tony
Blair responded to a question from journalist Jon Snow asking whether the
full report could be published by saying 'we may as well, you've seen
most of it already'. In the document, Lord Goldsmith weighs the different
arguments on whether military action against Iraq would be legal without
a second UN Resolution. Saying that "regime change cannot be the
objective of military action," it clearly stated that invasion for the
purpose of regime change was illegal. [72]
[edit]
Downing Street Memo
On 1 May 2005, a related UK document known as the Downing Street memo,
detailing the minutes of a meeting on 26 July 2002, was apparently leaked
to The Times. British officials did not dispute the document's
authenticity, and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman has called the
document "nothing new." The document corroborates the information in the
full advice of Lord Goldsmith: "The Attorney-General said that the desire
for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were
three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or
UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this
case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.," and
states furthermore that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military
action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no
patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on
the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of
the aftermath after military action." and that "It seemed clear that Bush
had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not
yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his
neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North
Korea or Iran.." On 5 May, John Conyers and 89 members of congress asked
George W. Bush, in a formal letter, to answer some questions about the
document, including whether he or anyone in his administration disputes
its accuracy. [73] The Bush Administration has stated that they will not
answer the questions.
.

User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	07 Aug 2005 11:38:42 PM

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:12:42 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

Because that's what the law says? The relevant international law is
that *only* the UN may start a war of aggression with the intent to
conquer a nation.

You know, this has got to be this weeks stupidest Usenet post. (And
it is only Sunday.)
Do you have any clue whatsoever or are you simply free-associating
random words?
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
.

User: "Kevin Lowe"
Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq	08 Aug 2005 12:13:45 AM

In article <taodf115jcak1pmtcmtms774691d3e0muv@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:12:42 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

Because that's what the law says? The relevant international law is
that *only* the UN may start a war of aggression with the intent to
conquer a nation.

You know, this has got to be this weeks stupidest Usenet post. (And
it is only Sunday.)

Do you have any clue whatsoever or are you simply free-associating
random words?

Come on, you can troll better than this. Make up some facts, or quote
some pundit saying the war was legal or something.
Make it interesting for us.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
.