I can't agree with that at all, unless we're just defining "pressure" differently. To my view, the insurrection is *entirely* driven by outside forces. Actually that isn’t true; this is an ingenious insurrection against the US. The first area of insurrection being the Sunni triangle was devised by Bath’ist sympathizers, not by some imagined outside forces, alas Syria, Iran, etc. The Shi’a insurrection in the south as well seems to be a largely home based insurrection. Sure they're picking up some local talent, but Iran is pouring meat over the border as fast as they can sign it up. Syria's probably still doing the same, and the Palestinian groups in Israel when they have the time. I am certain you have hard evidence to support this assertions. The pressure from kidnappings is also present, and you've got KofeandCupcake Anan running around calling the whole thing illegal. How much more pressure can there be? Kofi was speaking nothing but the truth; Americans have to learn how to deal with it. The invasion was obviously illegal, and illegitimate. Who has more credibility Kofi or Bush? Says it all.
I don't have any more evidence than you do. We've both read the same stories, we're obviously just taking a different conclusion from it. (shrug)
I don't have any more evidence than you do. No I do have evidence which states this is an organic uprising against the US. But you asserted that there was proof and certainty that these insurgencies are due to foreign influence. So common...lets see.
Undecided, we just had a discussion right here on Sciforums in which you agreed that Iran was enlisting terrorists and sending them right across the border. It was based on news articles that both you and I had read, and we talked about them. Don't you remember? Yeesh.
That's not a contradiction: Indigenous uprisings are commonly encouraged by outsiders with a vested interest in upsetting the applecart. Iraq has a sincere, acquired revulsion for foreign occupation, and meddlers on all sides.
Undecided, we just had a discussion right here on Sciforums in which you agreed that Iran was enlisting terrorists and sending them right across the border. Mind showing me that exact assertion? I never remember saying that…make sure you are able to prove what is bolded.
Why is it okay for you to post "evidence", but I have to post "proof"? (chuckle) At any rate, it's certainly possible I missunderstood you. What I recall is that we talked about a news article that came up which talked about Iran signing up terrorists and sending them across the border into Iraq. I don't really think that you disagree that that is perhaps taking place, you just think it's a minor factor rather than a major one, right? So fine, let's call it a difference of opinion and move on.
I have no idea where it is now. Probably a couple pages down in either Politics or World Events, but I don't even remember the subject. I would do a search but the only keywords I can think of are "Iran" and "terrorism", and that would produce a lot of results. (grin) Sorry if I put words in your mouth up there.
Three Navy Seals Charged in Deaths of Two Iraqis ------------------------- The Navy says three members of its elite Special Warfare Command, known as SEALs, are facing criminal charges, based on evidence collected in a military investigation of Iraqi prisoner abuse by American forces. ---------------------------- Navy officials say the charges stem from the deaths of two Iraqis while in U.S. custody. The officials say the three Navy SEALs attempted to hide evidence about the case from their superiors. --------------------------- http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/09/iraq-040925-33f1b218.htm I suspect as the months go by more murderers will come out.
Poland, and oppurtunity costs of Iraq: Not good times in Warsaw, another nation just itching to get out. Also this article shows that there was coercion from the US to many of the "wiling" states.
Source: Washington Post Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62801-2004Oct25.html Title: "The CIA's Disappeared" Date: October 26, 2004 The editorial goes on to urge Congress to make good on promises to look into this situation. I'm not sure what to say aside from noting that once again, the United States demonstrates that it is unwilling to honor the obligations it has made to the international community. Some would argue this is the right thing to do, but that begs the question of whether we should participate in the international community. As I think we should, I'm of the opinion that the improper removal of suspects is unacceptable. We have rights, and we also have responsibilities. This latter is what the U.S. seems to be ignoring at this time. ____________________ Notes: Washington Post. "The CIA's Disappeared". October 26, 2004; page A24. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62801-2004Oct25.html
There's one very important reason he shouldn't be blamed for 2000: on all practical levels, the Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable. Gore represented a wimpier version of Bush. Hence, he lost and very few people gave a shit. This time, the Dems once again run a wooden Indian. Almost like it's done for show, to keep our minds off the real transactions occurring behind the scenes... :m: :m: :m:
Source: Washington Post Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23372-2004Nov30.html Title: "U.S. Generals in Iraq Were Told of Abuse Early, Inquiry Finds" Date: December 1, 2004 So let's put a couple things on the table: • Government insiders suggest that the Bush administration sought from day one to invade Iraq. • Within minutes of the Pentagon being hit, Donald Rumsfeld was on the phone instructing people to find a way to pin the attack on Saddam Hussein. • Spectacular assertions of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and a definitive, substantial link to Al Qaeda failed to produce results. • From the beginning of the War on Terror, public discourse included the argument of whether or not ways existed to torture suspects without causing a furor.I don't think it's really that tough to figure out why Bush withdrew from the ICC. Nor is it tough to figure out why Bush mischaracterized his relationship to the ICC issue: Specifically, the United States renounced its signature of December 31, 2000: Really, is there anyone left who doesn't get it? Let me know. I'll try to explain it to you. What happened at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was not an accident. It was part of the plan. George W. Bush wanted to withdraw from the ICC in order to keep himself and his cohorts out of its reach. ____________________ Notes: White, Josh. "U.S. Generals in Iraq Were Told of Abuse Early, Inquiry Finds". Washington Post, December 1, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23372-2004Nov30.html See Also WashingtonPost.com. "Transcript: First Presidential Debate". September 30, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html WashingtonPost.com. "Transcript: Second Presidential Debate". October 8, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1008.html Bolton, John R. "International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary Kofi Annan". U.S. Department of State, May 6, 2002. See http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm
