Endgame in Iraq

[GrayMouser]

Though this (from the same source) is more hopeful:

ash-Sharq al-Awsat: The clerics of the Najaf seminaries have called upon the Army of the Mahdi to go fight the Americans outside the city if they must, so as to avoid the spilling of innocent blood. They called on the militia to pursue peaceful methods and to avoid violence, whatever the motivation. "If you reject our advice and decide to confront them, then remove yourselves from the city of Najaf, and take on the Occupier out there where there are no human beings or buildings, so that you do not burden others with the consequences of your decision, which is foreordained to be a failure."

They said Najaf has had enough martyrs in the past few decades. Saddam killed tens of thousands in the city in 1991 alone, in crushing the uprising after the Gulf War. Then, the clerics say, the terrorist Zarqawi hit the city on August 29 with a huge carbomb.

I also read another article in the Guardian, which said a lot of residents in Najaf are very unhappy that the Mahdi are preparing to fight there, especially as a lot of them are actually from Sadr City in Baghdad, not native Najafis.

They also blame them for spoiling business during the pilgrimage last week.

[Valandil]

After mounting tension the past couple months (possibly due, in part, to American mishandling of 2-3 things) - I'm hopeful that today's developments will lead to something positive.

Heading into the June 30 transfer of power, an interim Prime Minister favored by the Americans was selected on Friday, May 28 (Allawi). However, today, someone who has been critical of America was chosen as interim President - name of al-Yawer. Even though their President won't have as much power as their PM, it's a good sign to me that someone not staunchly pro-US was selected... I think it sends the right message to the Iraqi people... that they ARE in charge of the process, that the US WILL tolerate dissent and disagreement, rather than simply imposing our will on them.

It sounds like there were a couple particularly bad attacks today. I'm hopeful that things will settle down now after the political developments. We'll see soon enough.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Valandil
Heading into the June 30 transfer of power, an interim Prime Minister favored by the Americans was selected on Friday, May 28 (Allawi). However, today, someone who has been critical of America was chosen as interim President - name of al-Yawer. Even though their President won't have as much power as their PM, it's a good sign to me that someone not staunchly pro-US was selected... I think it sends the right message to the Iraqi people...

Good point. Had we strong armed the position it would have back fired in the long run. The concept of having the Iraqis choose their own leaders (although rather obvious in concept) is truly the way to go. If nothing else, the Sunis and the Shiites will unite in their desire to oppose our occupation of their country. That could actuallly be the best role we can serve. to unite people in their desire to have us gone. and to have leaders in place who the people feel reflect that same desire. lets hope they realize this and keep that up.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Good point. Had we strong armed the position it would have back fired in the long run. The concept of having the Iraqis choose their own leaders (although rather obvious in concept) is truly the way to go. If nothing else, the Sunis and the Shiites will unite in their desire to oppose our occupation of their country. That could actuallly be the best role we can serve. to unite people in their desire to have us gone. and to have leaders in place who the people feel reflect that same desire. lets hope they realize this and keep that up.

President Bush has already made some positive remarks about the selection... and for his part, al-Yawer, despite previous criticisms of American handling of things over there, said something positive about remembering US troops who liberated Iraq. To me, that's a good sign when both parties start paying tribute to one another.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by Valandil
Not to invite negative comments about America's foreign policy in general, but hopefully just to spark some conversation and insights.

In general, I've been very supportive of our adminstration's war on terror. I've felt good about our actions in Iraq... even if it ends up that the country had no advanced WMD program, it's not like the Bush admin set out to fool everyone, IMO... EVERYONE thought Iraq had them. And I feel real good about us removing the Hussein family from power.

However, I'm getting more unsettled about how things are currently going there. It appears to have been a major mistake to have shut down the one newspaper. It sure clouds our intentions... I would think we'd be all in favor of a free press. And if they thought whatever the paper published was inciting trouble, look how much trouble they got after they shut it down.

I really think the Bush administration should replace the general who ordered the paper's shut down and allow the paper to publish again. There'll probably still be a lot of mess to clean up... but at least it gets us back on the right footing.

What do the rest of you think the US should do now... given how things stand, in order to best extricate ourselves from Iraq, and still be able to leave a relatively peaceful, stable country behind us?

Topic: Iraq - Uranium Claim

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 1/28/2003

Quote/Claim:
"Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam Hussein] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
"The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board has concluded that the White House made a questionable claim in January's State of the Union address about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain nuclear materials because of its desperation to show that Hussein had an active program to develop nuclear weapons, according to a well-placed source familiar with the board's findings." - Washington Post, 12/24/03


reference

reference

Here is the website that has a claims vs. fact database on many aspects/issues of the Bush Administration.



link

[Valandil]

Yes Ragnarok, but please realize that much of this is posturing. Bush is relatively conservative, the Washington Post is known for being liberal. If Bush's FIAB concluded there was a 'questionable claim' and it was reported almost 11 months after the State of the Union address, is it reasonable to give the President and his staff reasonable doubt that it didn't seem so 'questionable' at the time of the address? And what was the Post's source? An actual report (which still allows for what I just mentioned)? Or just an un-named source on the FIAB... who perhaps has an axe to grind with the administration?

As for the other link... I'm sure those who don't want to see Bush re-elected and have the resources to track them down could quite easily find the inconsistencies they're looking for in various reports. They could do that to anyone they chose, I expect. Again - postering and electioneering.

Neither side in our political contests is purely good or purely evil. To think so, EITHER way, is to be blind to the truth - and a bit naive. And admittedly, the truth can be hard to find, because most sources of information have an agenda... OTHER than just reporting. Any of the news services seems to select just what to report and which words to choose - the individuals making those choices have their own slants, like anyone else.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ragnarok
Topic: Iraq - Uranium Claim

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 1/28/2003

Quote/Claim:
"Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam Hussein] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
"The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board has concluded that the White House made a questionable claim in January's State of the Union address about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain nuclear materials because of its desperation to show that Hussein had an active program to develop nuclear weapons, according to a well-placed source familiar with the board's findings." - Washington Post, 12/24/03


reference

reference

Here is the website that has a claims vs. fact database on many aspects/issues of the Bush Administration.



link

I guess they choose to ignore the fact that ALL world intelligence thought that Iraq had WMD.

Bush even, according to Bob Woodward's book - Bush questioned Tenet heavily on the accuracy on the intelligence. Blaming Bush on the intelligence is wrong - blaming Bush on the problems in the CIA is wrong. The problems in the CIA are a result of the cutbacks during the Clinton adminstration and are only now being remedied.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I guess they choose to ignore the fact that ALL world intelligence thought that Iraq had WMD.

Heck... even Hussein thought Iraq had WMDs. His scientists weren't exactly being too successful with all his ambitious programs... but to admit that to Hussein would be suicidal. So they made sure to give good reports about their progress.

That's why he acted like he had them... he thought he did.

(and maybe he did have some... Beor hasn't had time to look in every hole, under every rock, or dig up every inch of sand yet... have ya, Beor? )

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Valandil
Heck... even Hussein thought Iraq had WMDs. His scientists weren't exactly being too successful with all his ambitious programs... but to admit that to Hussein would be suicidal. So they made sure to give good reports about their progress.

That's why he acted like he had them... he thought he did.

(and maybe he did have some... Beor hasn't had time to look in every hole, under every rock, or dig up every inch of sand yet... have ya, Beor? )

As I have said - Dr Germ wasn't so high up in Hussein's government for health reasons...

...Dr Taha, a microbiologist who studied at the University of East Anglia in Britain, was in charge of the Iraqi facility that weaponised anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflotoxin. Mr Rashid, a former Iraqi army general, was Saddam Hussein's point-man on weapons delivery systems and was later appointed oil minister.

It is obvious that it was only a matter of time before iraq had the wmd they were trying to redevelop. There is NO question that he had them before.

[Insidious Rex]

Whats all this talk about mustard gas and botox (or whatever)? I thought his original point was about a nuclear device.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Whats all this talk about mustard gas and botox (or whatever)? I thought his original point was about a nuclear device.

It wasn't just the nuclear device - there were many things that there being looked at and many reasons to go to war. The WMD was ONLY ONE reason for going into Iraq.

[Radagast]

Inter arma silent leges.

'In times of war, the laws are silent.'

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
Inter arma silent leges.

'In times of war, the laws are silent.'

If that were true - then we wouldn't be prosecuting the soldiers in the prison abuse. We would have jusat havce ignored it - we would be bombing the hell out of Iraq and say screw it. Instead we have been trying to wage a very careful war. There have been misteps of course - but during all wars there are misteps. With the wars a country wins - only the positive is remembered - the ones that are lost - only the negative are remembered. It's human nature - but there were many misteps and mismanagements during World War II.

[Radagast]

US soldier jailed for Iraq abuse


Sivits is the first soldier convicted in the scandal
An American soldier convicted of abusing prisoners in an Iraqi jail has been sentenced to one year in prison.

Jeremy Sivits admitted abusing inmates and photographing them in humiliating poses at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail.

Sivits, the first person to be found guilty over the scandal, was also demoted and discharged from service.

Fighting back tears, Sivits testified that colleagues at the prison told him senior officials had ordered the abuse to get the prisoners to talk.

Earlier, three other soldiers charged with mistreating Iraqi detainees declined to enter pleas at their pre-trial hearing.

Apologetic

Before he was sentenced, an emotional Sivits told the court he felt remorse for his actions.


They were laying there on the floor, sandbags over their heads

Jeremy Sivits


In quotes: Sivits trial
Town prays for Sivits
In pictures: Prisoner abuse
"I'd like to apologise to the Iraqi people and those detainees," Sivits said, breaking down in tears.

"I should have protected those detainees, not taken the photos."

Recounting the abuse against the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Sivits told the court that on 8 November 2003, Staff Sgt Ivan Frederick told him to go to where the prisoners were gathered.

"I heard Cpl [Charles] Graner yelling in Arabic at the detainees," he said.

"I saw one of the detainees lying on the floor. They were laying there on the floor, sandbags over their heads."

He said Sgt Javal Davis and another soldier, Pte Lynndie England, were "stamping on their toes and hands".

Sivits said Cpl Graner complained he hurt his hand when he punched a prisoner in the head.

He said his colleagues told him they were ordered to abuse the prisoners.

"They said that they were told by military intelligence for them to keep doing what they were doing to the inmates because it was working, they were talking."

The former mechanic from Pennsylvania pleaded guilty to conspiracy to maltreat detainees, maltreatment of detainees and dereliction of duty.

More hearings

The BBC's Dumeetha Luthra in Baghdad says lawyers for some of the other soldiers have already dismissed Sivits' accusations as fabrication.


ABU GHRAIB: THE ACCUSED

Spc Jeremy Sivits: First to be tried, pleaded guilty
Sgt Javal Davis: Charges include cruelty and maltreating prisoners
Sgt Ivan Frederick: Charges include assaulting prisoners and committing indecent acts
Spc Charles Graner: Charges include maltreating and assaulting prisoners
Pte Lynndie England: Charges not announced
Spc Sabrina Harman: Charges not announced
Spc Megan Ambuhl: Charges not announced


Abuse scandal: Key figures
Suspects 'to blame others'
In pictures: Prisoner abuse
Most of the other soldiers maintain they were following orders, while Sivits says these were all individual actions, a stance the administration is keen to push, our correspondent adds.

Earlier on Wednesday, Staff Sgt Frederick, Sgt Davis and Spc Graner, who are also implicated in the abuse scandal, appeared in court.

They face more serious charges than Sivits, including physical assaults on prisoners.

They deferred entering pleas and were ordered to appear in court again on 21 June.

Unlike Sivits, who maintains senior commanders knew nothing about the abuse, the others are expected to contend that they were following orders as a means of "softening up" detainees before interrogation.

In Washington, three senior US commanders in Iraq are appearing before a Senate committee on the abuse scandal.

Central Command chief General John Abizaid, the commander of US forces in Iraq Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, and Iraq prisons chief Major General Geoffrey Miller are being questioned.

During the hearing, the committee chairman, Senator John Warner, revealed that the defence department had located another disc of pictures relating to the abuse of Iraqi pictures.

Gen Abizaid and Gen Sanchez admitted there were problems, such as overcrowding, in Iraqi prisons, but insisted there was no widespread abuse of prisoners.

"I don't believe that the culture of abuse existed in my command," Gen Abizaid said.

'Tantamount to torture'

The US is keen to show these were isolated incidents and will be dealt with swiftly, firmly and openly.

But the International Committee of the Red Cross has cast fresh doubt on the treatment of detainees.

ICRC director of operations Pierre Krahenbuhl told the BBC Panorama programme procedures at Abu Ghraib jail were still a cause of concern, despite being highlighted in a confidential February report.

The US has said that the ICRC made its concerns known directly to the US command in Baghdad last autumn and that some corrective actions were taken.

Mr Krahenbuhl said some aspects of treatment and conditions identified in a secret report produced in February were "tantamount to torture".

[jerseydevil]

So what is your point besides that we are a crappy country and the scum of the earth. I mean here you are - pulling stuff from the Red Cross - they don't even say there IS evidence of more abuse - just that they are afraid there is. I mean don't you think that those soldiers are blaming others just to save their own necks?

BTW - you don't even say who your source is - and there are SEVERAL British news papers that are very anti-American and will do anything to portray us in a bad light. If you're going to quote something - post your source.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I guess they choose to ignore the fact that ALL world intelligence thought that Iraq had WMD.

You know, I keep hearing that here on the Entmoot but IMO that's a bit of a generalisation. There were many nations who thought Iraq may have had WDM. The numbers of countries that were sure of it, was -if my memory doesn't fail me- rather small.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
You know, I keep hearing that here on the Entmoot but IMO that's a bit of a generalisation. There were many nations who thought Iraq may have had WDM. The numbers of countries that were sure of it, was -if my memory doesn't fail me- rather small.

No =- it wasn't small. French intelligence felt that they had WMD, British intelligence, Middle Eastern intelligence, UN intelligence and Asian Intelligence. NO one was saying he didn't have it - they just didn't want to do anything if he did. The argument was that he would use them if attacked - it was better to just do nothing than to instigate him. Hmmm - seems like the same argument they used for Hitler too. Don't instigate him - and he'll keep to himself.

[Earniel]

Again I don't agree. IMO many nations had a few clues to the possibility that Iraq had WMD but few considered the evidence complete enough to be able to judge that Iraq had the weapons. In the end it's easier to try and prove that he had them than that he didn't have any.

I grow tired of the constant comparison to Hitler, IMO there are many different factors involved in both cases.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Again I don't agree. IMO many nations had a few clues to the possibility that Iraq had WMD but few considered the evidence complete enough to be able to judge that Iraq had the weapons. In the end it's easier to try and prove that he had them than that he didn't have any.

yeah - and there were 17 resolutions to try proving that he had them and all times Hussein got in the way. Therefore - action had to be taken. As I said back in 2002 and 2003 - even if he didn't have them - it was only a matter of time before he did. It wasn't like he wasn't making an effort to get them. Everyone whined that we shoiuld have done something about North Korea - yeah we should have - but the UN inspectors there said that North Korea didn't even have a nuclear weapons program - then all of a sudden when they started firing missiles - we were supposed to have done something BEFORE it had reached that point. Short of what we just did in Iraq -what were we to do? Any country in the wo9rld could have dealt with North Korea - not just America. We chose to deal with Iraq before they developed into another North Korea in the heart of the Middle East.

I grow tired of the constant comparison to Hitler, IMO there are many different factors involved in both cases.

It doesn't really matter if you grow tired of the comparisons of hitler - they are still there and I will contiunue to post them. if you do not like them - then don't read them. I get tired of the constant US bashing on entmoot - but that hasn't stopped.