Bang, reality strikes again: By the looks of it the Humvee is really quite a crappy vehicle in Iraq. But the violence hasn’t seemed to have stopped in Iraq. Although in Iraq things are getting more restive, and that scares me to a certain extent. These new Iraqi forces (as stated in the article) are taking over the reigns from the US in Najaf. But are they effective? If the 100 police men who ran away in Southern Iraq, and certainly some of these Iraqi forces are dualistic in their motives, and loyalties. If the Iraqi’s are unable to secure security (on their own), and disregarding the interim govt in Iraq, there will be problems.
Al Q is at it again: Three things about this article, firstly we have a new name in the lexicon of the American invasion “game” the UJG, or “Unification and Jihad Group”. Seems to be an affiliate of OBL’s Al Q. The second thing is about the targeting of Iraqi security forces, it is a stroke of genius for the insurgency, but could blow up in their faces if they aren’t careful. To make too many Iraqi’s victims will make the insurgents look bad, and they will lose popular support. But in response the attacks against the Iraqi security forces should cause much apprehension from an Iraqi society to join these forces. In order for this “war” to be successful for the US she has to make the Iraqi security forces truly relevant and powerful in face of the insurgency. It’s not unlike that of Afghanistan this situation, central governmental authority is lacking in Afghanistan and the Karzai govt is dependant on the US and NATO for its mere survival. Like in Afghanistan Iraq could quickly compartmentalize if Iraqi’s are unable to provide security for themselves and then create the stage for a civil war (which looks like it may happen anyways). Thirdly we have the thing with these contractors/mercenaries in Iraq. I’ll leave that to your imaginations.
Let’s start on this one shall we, this resolution is very important because it does to a certain extent legitimatize the plan for a transfer of power, the occupation is still illegal mind you, but the transfer of power is now officially endorsed by the world community. This is a victory for the administration, but I believe one that simply came too late. This administration has already bungled the Iraqi experiment. The problem as I have constantly said is the idea of giving the Iraqi’s some semblance of control over foreign troops is one full of pot holes. If this interim govt council wants to seem legitimate it has to stand up to the US for real. I wouldn’t be surprised when another large insurgent period begins, and American forces begin to use overwhelming firepower against cities, the population of Iraq will start to mumble of getting rid of the occupation. If this interim govt stands a chance it has to not seem to be a US puppet and represent the interests of the Iraqi ppl. Giving power now to the interim govt is risky business. This new govt needs legitimacy, and although a UN resolution helps significantly it won’t be enough in this context. Also the occupation force will still be US lead, which imo a very big mistake. But overall it is good news...
Article Source: Washington Post Article Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24867-2004Jun8.html Article Title: "Ashcroft Denies Senators '02 Memo," by Susan Schmidt Article Date: June 9, 2004 Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee heard from Attorney General John Ashcroft that he will not release the full text of a 2002 policy memo regarding the legally acceptable degree of pain and suffering endured by suspected terrorists during interrogations. Mr. Ashcroft also told the committee that he knew of no presidential order that would allow al Qaeda suspects to be tortured by American personnel. Comment: Schumer has a point, on the one hand. It is good to ask around and figure out what you can do if you absolutely have to. To the other the issue is broader than that simple question. What has the Judiciary Democrats so upset is that every appearance seems to be, as Feinstein has it, a question of whether there was an effort to redefine torture and the limits. Some of the known language of the Justice memorandum appears to justify the use of torture, despite Bush administration and Justice Department declarations condemning torture. Mr. Ashrcroft went so far as to say, "I condemn torture. I don't think it's productive, let alone justified." It's enough of a statement that I'm willing to hold him to it, though I wonder what the brouhaha is about if torture isn't productive. If it isn't productive, the Justice Department would not have any need to advise the president that torture may be justified and that international laws against torture may be unconstitutional. What's the point? "Okay, Mr. President, you're all clear to use an unnecessary, non-productive techniques in case you're so inclined." I'm not sure that's a license you want to give to a president whose God tells him to invade the country that tried to kill his Daddy after his Daddy invaded them. Cheap shots aside, I am concerned at the notion that, while they were looking, various parts of the executive decided that torture might just be okay, and that our Constitution could not necessarily stop it. Of a related controversy swirling around the University of California at Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, we read: It's the idea of misreading, rewriting, reinterpreting, or otherwise distorting the boundaries of acceptability that has Senate Judiciary Democrats--and others--fuming. In deference to Schumer's sage advice, it might then be phrased that the White House only undertook the necessary exploration of figuring what the boundaries were in order to bend over backwards to stretch them even broader, render them even more faintly in the windblown dust. At some point, though, the whole thing seems ridiculous. None of this should be surprising; leaks, editors, partisans and pundits alike have been hinting after this situation at least since the beginning of the American War on Terror. It continues to feel as if the headlines are being recycled because, in our rage following 9/11, we looked right past them the first time. ____________________ Works Cited: • Hilden, Julie. "Did a Government Lawyer "Aid and Abet" Possible War Crimes By Writing a Crucial Memo?" Writ, June 8, 2004. See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040608.html • Schmidt, Susan. "Ashcroft Denies Senators '02 Memo." Washington Post, June 9, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24867-2004Jun8.html See Also • Priest, Dana and R. Jeffrey Smith. "Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture." Washington Post, June 8, 2002; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html
Unless, say, you have principles. How many human rights treaties say "unless you really, really have to. .". Given that anyone arrested* for terrorism can be thought to have information that may save thousands of lives, this seems a bad idea. Given that people have been arrested for enquiring about the arrests of other <a href="http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-190803-action-eng">detainees</a> and given that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15492-2004May10?language=printer">70-90% </a>of the people detained in Iraq are likely innocent and given that the admin shouldn't be trusted to take care of a house plant, I think this is an atrociously bad idea. How 'bout we don't torture anyone. Ever. * or nabbed, more accurately, since arrests involve quaint little things like courts and lawyers and rights.
Article Source: New York Times Article Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/14/international/middleeast/14ABUS.html Article Title: "Unit Says It Gave Earlier Warning of Abuse in Iraq," by Andrea Elliot Article Date: June 14, 2004 Read it while it's hot! Well, okay. The issue is not going to go away. But the link will, after a few days. Comment: This isn't surprising. One need not be clairvoyant to have figured this likely. As the facts come out, we should not be surprised. Drip-drip-drip ... George, thy cup runneth over. ____________________ • Elliott, Andrea. "Unit Says It Gave Earlier Warning of Abuse in Iraq." New York Times, June 14, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/14/international/middleeast/14ABUS.html Note: Registration required for New York Times links.
Undee, The HUMVEE is a great vehicle. However, it is NOT designed to take bomb blasts. It is not a tank, its a general 4x4 transportation vehicle. I suggest you go for a ride in one, theyre are alot of fun Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The HUMVEE is a great vehicle. Yes for camping, it seems it sucks ass in war. However, it is NOT designed to take bomb blasts. Seems kind of stupid doesn’t it? I mean it was supposed to replace the M-113’s as a military vehicle, and I thought (I may be wrong) that military vehicles should be able to withstand a bomb blast? I suggest you go for a ride in one, theyre are alot of fun The great Satan can wait…
Undee, The HUMVEE was designed to replace the Jeep and the various dodge pickups the military was using, not the 113. The closet replacement for the 113 would be the Bradley. Personally I like the 113's alot better than the Bradleys. There is more room in side and some of the Bradley guys think that the bradleys are tanks *lol* Also, the 113's have a much smaller profile. The 113's would get smoked just like the HUMVEE's in the majority of these attacks. The insurgents are using Artillery rounds and a 113 wont have a chance. If you want a armored wheeled Vehicle we have the Stryker's but I wouldnt ride in one.
The HUMVEE was designed to replace the Jeep and the various dodge pickups the military was using, not the 113. My bad… The 113's would get smoked just like the HUMVEE's in the majority of these attacks. The insurgents are using Artillery rounds and a 113 wont have a chance. If you want a armored wheeled Vehicle we have the Stryker's but I wouldnt ride in one. Firstly, at least with the 113 you would have somewhat better chance of surviving. If generals are calling for the 113 to come to replace the HUMVEE something is wrong with the HUMVEE. About the Stryker, why wouldn’t u ride in it?
More bad news…but this time from Afghanistan the neglected vassal: Interesting, Afghanistan is in more of mess then the mute media leads us to believe. The country is still controlled by the sword, and it’s not an American or nationalist Afghani sword either. So what now? The election in Afghanistan was supposed to be in this month believe it or not? So what happened to the inevitable train of democracy? Is this what we should expect in Iraq?
Source: Washington Post Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10281-2004Sep9.html Title: "A Failed Investigation" Date: September 10, 2004 An editorial critical of the Bush administration's handling of the Abu Ghraib scandal represents the latest crisis of leadership that bears absolutely no weight with the American people. With every piece of bad news that comes in, Bush's poll numbers go up. The Post editorial stings, picking at ghost prisoners, memoranda including improper holding and interrogation techniques, and also the Bush administration's reluctance to hold senior officers accountable: senior commanders, knowing of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, are not facing the courts-martial seemingly reserved for the low-level soldier. Despite General Kern referring to Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez as "a hero", Sen. John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked Kern and his associates to reexamine the cases of certain senior officers, and pledged to investigate the ghost prisoner stories. And the editors have their ideas for the future: This is disturbing in more than one way. Not only has the Bush administration shown that Bush's third-attempt (third-tier) apology is insincere, and the words of comfort and pledge of justice given to the Iraqi people was mere lip service, but the American people seem to eat it up. The cultural testament of a society so addicted to warfare that one can raise their poll numbers by sanctioning war crimes is discouraging at least. This is not the way to win the peace. This is not the way to any Pax Americana. This is not a solution to the War on Terror. This is a farcical tragedy of the most garish mode. Once again, we see the need to throw fuel on the fire in order to keep passions burning. I wonder if Mr. Bush has figured out yet why "they" hate "us". ____________________ • Editorial. "A Failed Investigation". Washington Post, September 10, 2004; page A28. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10281-2004Sep9.html See Also - • Graham, Bradley and Josh White. "General Cites Hidden Detainees". Washington Post, September 10, 2004; page A24. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8946-2004Sep9.html
What kills American soldiers in Iraq? Here’s your answer: I emphasized the last portion for good reason, there is popular discontent with the US occupation in Iraq. America the greatest military force the world has ever known, is being tamed by bombs we could all make in our homes! The absurdity of that statement symbolically shows the callousness and absurdity of this whole adventure in Iraq. What I’ve noticed is that Iraq for the US may be a very bad thing in the long run. Unlike in the Cold War, insurgents cannot count on the USSR to provide the support needed to destroy the US’ will to fight. Now instead we have a country like Iraq who has millions upon millions of scattered munitions, and people who aren’t afraid to use them. The fact that the US today is facing an enemy that totally self-sufficient says a lot about the future of warfare. I would advise the US to reconsider any further idiotic actions like Iraq, because Iraq is a cake walk compared to what would happen in Iran. You know over time drops of water can erode a rock…think about it.
The Bleak future of Iraq: This raises so many more questions then it does answers, the biggest question is how can Americans say that Bush handles Iraq better then Kerry would? Honestly now it is getting to the point of retardation, and I cannot believe that literate human beings would not see the reality of the situation. Are Americans so confident in their abilities, that they have forgotten the folly of that way? When Iraqis have hope for the future and real opportunity, they will reject those who advocate violence." Well sir you need security first, security comes before any economic development, that is the basic prerequisite of development, all else comes second. Unless America starts re-think her position in the world, change leadership, and understands that this war is unwinnable (because it’s not even a war in a sense) America will have many years of Iraq left.
We have no idea how Kerry will handle Iraq; that's part of the problem. I'm sorry, but I can't settle for an "anybody but Bush" approach to dealing with Iraq. Is it f'ed up? You bet. Could it be worse? FAR. Your own post shows it -- "trend lines that point to civil war". That means things could be worse than they are right now. Kerry is full of contradictions and lack of plans when it comes to Iraq. He says we haven't sent enough troops there, and he would send more, but he also says he would end the "back door draft" of guard/reserve duty. How does he intend to resolve this contradiction? And what's the point in even sending more troops anyway if you're just going to pull them out in six months regardless of the situation there? I give Kerry some leeway on this issue for the simple reason that it's difficult if not impossible for Kerry to give us a detailed plan for Iraq. The enemy is listening, and all that. But the logic of the situation is such that I really don't see a lot of options here that are substantially different from what Bush is doing right now. If he's just going to reverse everything because he's "different from the last guy", that's not a good enough reason for me. I need more. So Iraq is not a deal-breaker for me in terms of whether or not I will vote for him. But I'm willing to debate the issue anyway because to me the above post looks way too focused on "ABB", not solving the problems in Iraq.
I don’t see the argument there, if we all agree that Bush’s handling of Iraq is horrible then why do we want to prolong it? Wouldn’t it be more logical to have a change in policy in the White House? How can Kerry honestly hope to spell out a plan that will actually fix the situation in Iraq that doesn’t involve “pull out?” The problem in Iraq transcends Democrat and Republican in the sense that this is a war against the US not a party. It is true that Kerry needs to get a position on this and stick to it, but we must remember that this debacle was a result of Bush not Kerry. This is a position of anyone but Bush because he has shown himself to be completely incompetent, and it looks like on the verge of dementia. How can one say that they would rather vote for Bush on Iraq when empirical evidence shows he’s a bull shitter? You must understand elections are full of talking points on both sides, and just because they utter something doesn’t mean is it going to happen. I don’t think Kerry is this great president in the making, but he is surely better then Bush. We gave Bush about two years to fix the situation, he’s failed. Time for a new tact.
Oh I'm sorry, you wanted to make an ABB stump speech, and here I am interrupting you to talk about the future of Iraq! My bad, I thought this was the World Events board; I didn't realize it was actually the Politics board. ;-) I don't think we should have gone into Iraq in the first place. But as with your point about the handling to date, it's not really the issue. The issue is the best way to handle it from this point forward. Put another way, if the Democratic candidate for president was Satan, and his plan for Iraq was a purge, say, all the Sunnis, then throwing Bush out would hardly be a step forward, now would it?
But as with your point about the handling to date, it's not really the issue. The issue is the best way to handle it from this point forward. What are you talking about Pangloss? It has everything to do with it; Bush says “stay the course” has that course worked? Are you telling me Bush’s handling of Iraq is irrelevant? Because that’s what you just did, all you care about is the future; well the future is in the past. No matter what Kerry does, or Bush for that matter, they cannot control Iraqi’s so really their “plans” are irrelevant. The question is who would have more respect to get the US out? Put another way, if the Democratic candidate for president was Satan, and his plan for Iraq was a purge, say, all the Sunnis, then throwing Bush out would hardly be a step forward, now would it? Let’s avoid the hyperbolic idiocy please…
I don't have a problem with you suggesting that another candidate might be better at the job. I have a problem with you saying that *anybody* else would automatically be better at the job. That conjecture is not supported by your own assessment.
