"Win the peace"...

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:

Zemke added: "I can't give you a final date when we will leave Iraq. It will be a process of phasing down. It will be fully dependent on the situation in Iraq. My wish is that the final date would be the end of 2005."
---------------------------------
Zemke said it was costing Poland $100 million a year to keep the troops in Iraq. That did not include costs for sending and maintaining equipment. Poland had sent its one and only state-of-the art field hospital to Iraq and 40 percent of its night-vision devices. It recently sent 700 specialized vehicles,
------------------------------
In return for supporting the U.S.-led coalition, Poland last year received $27 million from the Pentagon, although after negotiations with Washington this month Zemke said he expected that to rise to $66 million.
-------------------------------------------
But Zemke pointed out that some of these countries had only provided double-digit numbers of soldiers but had received generous financing from the Pentagon that was similar to that provided to Poland.
------------------------------
Zemke said that the sum of $66 million that was recently negotiated with the Pentagon would include five used C-130 Hercules, an aircraft model that is widely used for hauling troops, vehicles and cargo.
--------------------------------
Poland's military spending last year amounted to $4.5 billion, the equivalent of 1.95 percent of gross domestic product. In 2001, 9.5 percent of the military budget was spent on procurement and that rose to 19 percent this year.
-------------------------
Despite the heavy costs of deploying troops in Iraq, Zemke said the 2005 procurement budget would rise to 25 percent, an increase in real terms of 8 percent, or around $400 million. Much of that equipment would be earmarked for Iraq.
------------------------------
But public opinion has changed after the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction, the main justification for the United States and Britain to attack Iraq, and the rapid deterioration in security.
---------------------------------
The most recent polls show that more than 75 percent of those polled want Polish troops brought home as soon as possible.
-------------------------
Poland was scheduled to hand over the command to Spain during the summer and that would have allowed some of the Polish troops to be brought home this year.
Click to expand...

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 BUSH administration pretends, and many Americans may believe, that the abuse of U.S.-held prisoners abroad ended after the release of sensational photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Sadly, it did not. While blaming the crimes at Abu Ghraib on a small group of low-ranking soldiers, the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA have fought to preserve the exceptional and sometimes secret policies that allow U.S. personnel to violate the Geneva Conventions and other laws governing the handling and interrogation of foreign detainees. Under those policies, practices at odds with basic American values continue -- even if there are no sensational photos to document them.

The latest example concerns "ghost prisoners," suspects captured in Iraq and Afghanistan who are interrogated by the CIA in secret locations, sometimes outside those countries, and whose identities and locations are withheld from relatives, the International Red Cross and even Congress. For all practical purposes, they have "disappeared," like the domestic detainees of some notorious dictatorships. The first official Army investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib called this practice "deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine and in violation of international law." Yet, according to reporting by The Post's Dana Priest, the CIA subsequently transported as many as a dozen more "ghost detainees" out of Iraq to interrogate them in its secret prisons.

Washington Post
Click to expand...

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​
 
tiassa said:
Which updates the list now to three reasons why Nader shouldn't be blamed for 2000:
Click to expand...

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

A confidential report to Army generals in Iraq in December 2003 warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees, a finding delivered more than a month before Army investigators received the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison that touched off investigations into prisoner mistreatment.

The report, which was not released publicly and was recently obtained by The Washington Post, concluded that some U.S. arrest and detention practices at the time could "technically" be illegal. It also said coalition fighters could be feeding the Iraqi insurgency by "making gratuitous enemies" as they conducted sweeps netting hundreds of detainees who probably did not belong in prison and holding them for months at a time.

The investigation, by retired Col. Stuart A. Herrington, also found that members of Task Force 121--a joint Special Operations and CIA mission searching for weapons of mass destruction and high-value targets including Saddam Hussein--had been abusing detainees throughout Iraq and had been using a secret interrogation facility to hide their activities.

Washington Post
Click to expand...

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:

My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion--the difference of opinions.

And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial . . .

. . . And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could--where our people could be prosecuted. (President George W. Bush, September 30, 2004)

I made a decision not to join the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is where our troops could be brought to--brought in front of a judge, an unaccounted judge. (President George W. Bush, October 8, 2004)
Click to expand...

Specifically, the United States renounced its signature of December 31, 2000:

Dear Mr. Secretary-General:

This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty.

U.S. Dept. of State
Click to expand...

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
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top