Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > "Who Kills Hostages in Iraq?"

"Who Kills Hostages in Iraq?"
Thread Tools
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2004, 09:42 PM
 
It is easy to write superficial generalizations like: "Why they hate us".

It is much more complicated to look at "Who is they".

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2004/09/az091904.html]An Inventory of Iraqi Resistance Groups

By Samir Haddad and Mazin Ghazi
Al Zawra (Baghdad)
September 19, 2004

(FBIS Translated Text)


US soldiers guard the wreckage of a military armored vehicle destroyed by the Iraqi resistance. In Iraq, the issues are even more confused now than they were before. This happened after an armed group abducted two French journalists, and threatened to kill them if France did not rescind the law banning religious symbols at schools, including the veil, and another group abducted two Italian women in Baghdad. The issues became even more confused when a third group killed 12 Nepalese workers, claiming that they were serving the US forces.

It is our duty now to clarify the picture with regard to who targets civilians and foreigners, who abducts hostages indiscriminately, and who makes the US occupation and its soldiers his main preoccupation.

After the fall of Baghdad into the hands of the Anglo-American occupation on 9 April 2003, as a natural reaction, several sectors of Iraqi society confronted the occupation. Resistance cells were formed, the majority of which were of Islamic Sunni and pan-Arab tendencies. These cells started in the shape of scattered groups, without a unifying bond to bind them together.

These groups and small cells started to grow gradually, until they matured to some extent and acquired a clear personality that had its own political and military weight. Then they stated to pursue combining themselves into larger groups.

The majority of these groups do not know their leadership, the sources of their financing, or who provides them with weapons. However, the huge amounts of weapons, which the Saddam Husayn regime left behind, are undoubtedly one of the main sources for arming these groups. These weapons include mortars, RPGs, hand grenades, Kalashnikovs, and light weapons.

Their intellectual tendencies are usually described as a mixture of Islamic and pan-Arab ideas that agree on the need to put an end to the US presence in Iraq.

These groups have common denominators, the most important of which perhaps are focusing on killing US soldiers, rejecting the abductions and the killing of hostages, rejecting the attacks on Iraqi policemen, and respecting the beliefs of other religions. There is no compulsion to convert to Islam, this stems from their Islamic creed, their reading of the jurisprudence texts and historical events, and their respect for the directives and appeals of the Islamic organizations and religious dignitaries.

These groups believe the Iraqis are divided into two categories. One category -- the majority - is against the occupation, and the other -- the minority -- is on the side of the occupation. The resistance considers those who reject the occupation, whatever their description might be, to be on its side. The resistance considers those who are on the side of the occupation to be as spies and traitors who do not deserve to remain on Iraqi territory, and hence they should be liquidated.

As for their view of the political parties, it depends on the stance of these parties toward the occupation. If these parties are dealing with the United States on the basis that it is an occupation force that should be evicted and that Iraq should be liberated from any military occupation or constrictions, and if these parties choose to deal with the United States and to engage in political action within this context, then these parties are free to continue with their efforts. Moreover, in general, these groups do not target the political powers that deal, but do not cooperate with the United States within the political framework established by the occupation.

The following is a review of the resistance groups and the armed groups in Iraq:

First, the main Sunni resistance groups that primarily target the US occupation:

1. The Iraqi National Islamic Resistance, "The 1920 Revolution Brigades:"

-- It emerged for the first time on 16 July 2003. Its declared aim is to liberate Iraqi territory from foreign military and political occupation and to establish a liberated and independent Iraqi state on Islamic bases. It launches armed attacks against the US forces. The attacks primarily are concentrated in the area west of Baghdad, in the regions of Abu-Ghurayb, Khan Dari, and Al-Fallujah. It has other activities in the governorates of Ninwi, Diyali, and Al-Anbar. The group usually takes into consideration the opinions of a number of Sunni authorities in Iraq.

-- The group's statements, in which it claims responsibility for its operations against the US occupation, are usually distributed at the gates of the mosques after the Friday prayers.

-- A recent statement issued by the group on 19 August 2004 explained that the group, during the period between 27 July and 7 August 2004, carried out an average of 10 operations every day, which resulted in the deaths of dozens of US soldiers and the destruction of dozens of US armored vehicles.

-- The most prominent operations of the group during that period were the shooting down of a helicopter in the Abu-Ghurayb region by the Al-Zubayr Bin-al-Awwam Brigade on 1 August 2004, and the shooting down of a Chinook helicopter in the Al-Nu'aymiyah region, near Al-Fallujah, by the Martyr Nur-al-Din Brigade on 9 August 2004.

2. The National Front for the Liberation of Iraq:

-- The front includes 10 resistance groups. It was formed days after the occupation of Iraq in April 2003. It consists of nationalists and Islamists. Its activities are concentrated in Arbil and Karkuk in northern Iraq; in Al-Fallujah, Samarra, and Tikrit in central Iraq, and in Basra and Babil Governorates in the south, in addition to Diyali Governorate in the east.

-- Generally speaking, its activities are considered smaller than those of the 1920 Revolution Brigades.

3. The Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front, 'JAMI':

The front is the newest Sunni resistance group to fight the US occupation. It includes a number of small resistance factions that formed a coalition. Its political and jihad program stems from a jurisprudence viewpoint that allows it to fight the occupiers. Its activities against the occupation forces are concentrated in the two governorates of Ninwi and Diyali. It announced its existence for the first time on 30 May 2004.

In its statements, JAMI warns against the Jewish conspiracies in Iraq.

According to statements issued by the front, JAMI's military wing, the Salah-al-Din and Sayf-Allah al-Maslul Brigades, has carried out dozens of operations against the US occupation forces. The most prominent of these operations were in Ninwi Governorate. These operations included the shelling of the occupation command headquarters and the semi-daily shelling of the Mosul airport. Further more, JAMI targets the members of US intelligence and kills them in the Al-Faysaliyah area in Mosul and also in the governorate of Diyali, where the front's Al-Rantisi Brigade sniped a US soldier and used mortars to shell Al-Faris Airport.

4. Other Small Factions:

There are other factions that claim responsibility for some limited military operations against the US forces. However, some of these factions have joined larger brigades that are more active and more experienced in fighting. These factions include:

Hamzah Faction: A Sunni group that appeared for the first time on 10 October 2003 in Al-Fallujah and called for the release of a local shaykh known as Shaykh Jamal Nidal, who was arrested by the US forces. There is no other information available about this group.

Iraqi Liberation Army: The first appearance of this group was on 15 July 2003. It warned the foreign countries against sending troops to Iraq and pledged to attack those troops if they were sent.

Awakening and Holy War: A group of Arab Sunni mujahidin. It is active in Al-Fallujah. It filmed an operation on videotape and sent the tape to Iranian television on 7 July 2003. On the tape, the group said that Saddam and the United States were two sides of the same coin. The group said that it carried out operations against the US occupation in Al-Fallujah and other cities.

The White Banners: A group of local Arab Sunni mujahidin that is active in the Sunni triangle and probably in other areas. Originally, they were opposed to Saddam Husayn, and in alliance with the Muslim Youths and Muhammad's Army. The group criticized the bombing of the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad. So far, there is no information about their operations.

Al-Haqq Army: There is not much information about this group, apart from that it consists of Arab Sunni Muslims, it has some nationalistic tendencies, and it is not loyal to Saddam.

5. Ba'thist Factions:

These factions are loyal to the Ba'th Party and the previous regime of Saddam Husayn. They do not constitute a proportion of the actual resistance in Iraq. Their activities are more or less restricted to financing of resistance operations. The factions that still exist secretly in the Iraqi arena include:

Al-Awdah (The Return): This faction is concentrated in northern Iraq -- Samarra, Tikrit, Al-Dur, and Mosul. It consists of members of the former intelligence apparatus.

Saddam's Fedayeen: The faction was formed by the Saddam regime before the US invasion. Now, it is rumored that many of its members have abandoned their loyalty to Saddam and have joined Islamic and national groups on the side of the 11 September Revolutionary Group and the Serpent's Head Movement.

Second, Shiite resistance against the occupation:

Al-Sadr group: The Al-Mahdi Army is considered the only militia experiment to emerge after the occupation. In July 2003, Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr announced the formation of the Al-Mahdi Army, but not as a force directed against the occupation. Within a short period, Al-Sadr gathered between 10,000 and 15,000 well-trained youths, the majority of whom were from the poor of the Al-Sadr City, Al-Shu'lah, and the southern cities.

Recent events -- starting with the closure of Al-Sadr's Al-Hawzah newspaper in March 2004; the arrest of Al-Sadr assistant Mustafa al-Ya'qubi against a background of suspicions about his involvement in the killing of Imam Abd-al-Majid al-Khu'i, and crowned with the writ to arrest Muqtada al-Sadr in April on charges of assassinating Al-Khu'i inside the Al-Haydari mosque in Al-Najaf on 10 April 2003 -- placed the Al-Mahdi Army in confrontation with the occupation forces in Baghdad and the southern governorates.

The greatest confrontation between this militia and the occupation forces erupted in Al-Najaf in August 2004. The confrontation continued for nearly three weeks, and it ended with the signing of a cease-fire agreement between the two sides. The observers believe that these confrontations bestowed upon the Al-Sadr tendency the mark of an armed resistance to the occupation.

Imam Ali Bin-Abi-Talib Jihadi Brigades: This Shiite group appeared for the first time on 12 October 2003. It vowed to kill the soldiers of any country sending its troops to support the coalition forces, and threatened to transfer the battleground to the territories of such countries if they were to send troops. The group also threatened to assassinate all the members of the Interim Governing Council and any Iraqi cooperating with the coalition forces. The group also announced that Al-Najaf and Karbala were the battlegrounds in which it would target the US forces.

Third: Factions that adopt abductions and killing:

In addition to the groups resisting occupation, other armed groups have emerged and resorted to operations of abducting and killing foreigners as a method, in their opinion, that would terrorize the enemy and as a political pressure card to achieve their specific demands. This was what happened when Philippine President Gloria Macapagol-Arroyo decided to withdraw the Philippine forces acting under US command in Iraq after the abduction of her compatriot Angelo del Cruz on 7 July 2004 and his release at a later time.

The most prominent of these groups are:

Assadullah Brigades: The brigades said in a statement, number 50, "The mujahid is entitled to capture any infidel that enters Iraq, whether he works for a construction company or in any other job, because he could be warrior, and the mujahid has the right to kill him or take him as a prisoner."

The activities of this group are concentrated in Baghdad and its suburbs. The group detained the third most senior diplomat at the Egyptian Embassy to Iraq, Muhammad Mamduh Hilmi Qutb, in July 2004 in response to statements by Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmad Nazif, who announced that Egypt was prepared to offer its security expertise to the interim Iraqi Government. The diplomat was released after nearly a week.

Islamic Retaliation Movement: One of the movements that adopt the course of abductions. It abducted the US Marine of Lebanese origin, Wasif Ali Hassun, on 19 July 2004, and then released him.

Islamic Anger Brigades: The group that abducted 15 Lebanese in June 2004 and then released them, with the exception of Husayn Ulayyan, an employee of a communications company, whom it killed.

Khalid-Bin-al-Walid Brigades and Iraq's Martyrs Brigades: They are believed to be the ones who abducted Italian journalist Enzo Bladoni in August 2004 and killed him.

The Black Banners Group: A battalion of the Secret Islamic Army. The group abducted three Indians, two Kenyans, and an Egyptian working for a Kuwaiti company operating in Iraq. The aim was to compel the company to stop its activities in Iraq. The hostages were later released.

The Abu-Mus'ab al-Zarqawi Group.

The Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad Group.

The Islamic Army in Iraq: A secret organization that adopts the ideology of Al-Qa'ida. The organization abducted Iranian Consul Feredion Jahani and the two French journalists, Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot.

Ansar al-Sunnah Movement: The movement abducted 12 Nepalese on 23 August 2004 and killed them.

The last four groups are clearly intellectually close to the beliefs and thinking of Al-Qa'ida Organization and its leader, Usama Bin Ladin.

The first case of slaughter was that of US national Nicholas Berg in May 2004, and the Abu-Mus'ab al-Zarqawi group claimed responsibility for it.

After that, the Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad Group killed South Korean Kim Il, who was working for a Korean company providing the US Army with military installations.

Following that, the operations of abducting hostages cascaded in Iraq. Some of the hostages were slaughtered, and others were released. And the phenomenon came to the surface.

The total number of hostages killed so far is: two Italians, two US nationals, two Pakistanis, one Egyptian, one Turk, one Lebanese, one Bulgarian, one South Korean, and 12 Nepalese.

(Description of Source: Baghdad Al-Zawra in Arabic--Weekly published by the Iraqi Journalists Association)
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2004, 11:50 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
It is easy to write superficial generalizations like: "Why they hate us".

It is much more complicated to look at "Who is they".
Are you simply saying, as soon as the Iraqis have the ability to govern themselves as determined by a free and fair election, and as soon as they are able to enforce their own laws and protect their own borders, that the US should leave?

If so, let me tell you a secret...

THAT'S BEEN OUR AIM SINCE DAY ONE!

Whoever thinks otherwise is an imbecile.

Look at our track record.

Germany, Japan, Korea, Viet Nam, Panama, Grenada, the Balkans, Gulf War...

When have we stayed or tried to run the affairs of a nation we defeated on the battlefield?

NEVER!

Instead, we stuck around just long enough to help them get back on their feet and become strong and prosperous, or else we just let them be.

Most of them benefitted greatly because of our aid and ALL of them call their own shots.

We don't tell them what to do or impose our will on them.





PERIOD.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
CreepingDeth
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2004, 12:03 AM
 
Scratch Nam off there: We pulled out, the VC took over, and then we had the purges and a lot of displacement. Vietnam is now a communist country.

Aberdeen, if you see this, clear out your PMs and reply.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2004, 12:08 AM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
It is easy to write superficial generalizations like: "Why they hate us".

It is much more complicated to look at "Who is they".
You're right. It IS more complicated. The text was long, boring and served what purpose? To rally your supporters here on MacNN??? To make you feel good? To give a name to the misguided terrorist insurgent?

The, "WHO IS THEY" is less important to me (as I am not going to mail them any holiday greetings or call their cell phone) as the, 'WHY IS THEY.'

I suspect you have a strange and scary 'film' running through your brain, angaq.

The fact that you chose an article which gave the "WHO IS THEY" is something like budding (or advanced) idolotry or fan worship or feeding your own feelings you might already have to emulate their example.

Don't say things you can't take back. - vmarks

Mods, take note.
( Last edited by vmarks; Sep 26, 2004 at 12:17 AM. )
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2004, 11:45 AM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Are you simply saying, as soon as the Iraqis have the ability to govern themselves as determined by a free and fair election, and as soon as they are able to enforce their own laws and protect their own borders, that the US should leave?

If so, let me tell you a secret...

THAT'S BEEN OUR AIM SINCE DAY ONE!
No need to yell...

That is quite a long day... Saddam is dead, no WMDs were ever found.

You are done, and unless the Iraqi people want you to stay, your time is up. After all they are free, right?

Whoever thinks otherwise is an imbecile.

Look at our track record.

Germany, Japan, Korea, Viet Nam, Panama, Grenada, the Balkans, Gulf War...
Insulting people with a different opinion, does that not say something about your confidence in your own opinions? Anyway...

Maybe it is time for you to check how much these countries had to pay and for how long for their freedom... That is if they are done paying...


When have we stayed or tried to run the affairs of a nation we defeated on the battlefield?
Oh yes. All the time. And there is no need to forage through some obscure "Neo-Con" type of agenda. The prevailing agenda is the one about geopolitical control and accessibility of resources. Oil: 40 years to go at the actual rate of usage, without counting on China's gargantuesque needs to come. You can feel the worry in the political atmosphere. The U.S. policy on energy reflects exactly that sense of emergency...

Look at the Nation Building programs of the RAND. Much to learn there...

And this pearl:

Hard-earned lessons on nation-building
Seven ways to rebuild Iraq
By Carl Bildt


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This opinion article appeared in The International Herald Tribune on May 7, 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the wake of the war in Iraq, the world is learning once again that is far easier to destroy a regime with military might than to build a new state out of the bomb craters. We have tried before, and there is much to be learned from the successes and failures of nation-building in the past few decades - from Haiti to Kosovo and East Timor. No two situations are identical, but seven lessons stand out.

Lesson 1: It is imperative to establish a secure environment very fast. In Bosnia, we failed in the critical transfer of territories in Sarajevo. In Kosovo, the mandate for the troops was clearer, but we still failed to protect minorities. In both cases, we still suffer from the consequences of these initial failures.

In Afghanistan there are grave question marks over the consequences of limiting the international security presence to Kabul. As long as the gun remains the fastest way to power and property, there simply will not be room for democratic politics and entrepreneurship. With national police in disarray and international police always taking time to recruit, there is no alternative to using soldiers and armies to keep order.

Lesson 2: The central challenge is not reconstruction, but state-building. Reconstruction of the physical scars of war is certainly important, and it can be costly and take time. But building a political infrastructure that unites competing forces and ensures some sort of order, and an infrastructure of economic governance that promotes jobs and growth, is far more complex. Priorities must be right.

Lesson 3: To build a state, you need to know what state to build. Normally this requires some sort of a peace agreement or constitution. When this is not the case - as in Kosovo - any initial success risks being short-lived. In the Balkans, we have seen the immense challenge of doing so in a multiethnic environment. We must recognize that Iraq has some issues in common with other former parts of the Ottoman Empire, such as Kosovo and the Kurdish region.

The potential of Iraq for disintegration is obvious, as are the consequences if this was to happen. Thus there has to be an early and fast agreement on a constitutional structure that will unite Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen and Assyrians of different beliefs in a state structure acceptable to them all.

Lesson 4: While humanitarian problems are always in the focus in the initial phase, it is dangerous to let them predominate over the long-term issues. There must be an early focus on economic questions such as currency, customs, taxation systems, commercial law, banking, debt restructuring and accessing international capital markets.

The sanctions that were provoked by Saddam Hussein have destroyed much of Iraq's economy. Because Iraq has experienced a population explosion, oil income per capita is unlikely to be substantially more than a tenth of what it was in the early 1980s. Job creation and bringing back a vibrant middle class are the keys to long-term stability.

Lesson 5: There has to be a benevolent regional environment. In the Balkans, regime change in Zagreb and Belgrade was key to improving prospects in Bosnia and Kosovo; in Afghanistan, the open or tacit cooperation of Pakistan and Iran is critical. If neighbors try to destabilize, they will sooner or later succeed.

Iraq is now a fragile zone in one of the most volatile areas of the world. Just about everyone recognizes that if the liberation of Iraq from tyranny is not followed by the liberation of Palestine from occupation - giving true security to Israel, too - the presence of U.S. and other NATO forces in Iraq will be an extremely challenging operation.

Lesson 6: The greater the international support, the easier the process. If there is international disagreement over the state-building process, this sooner or later risks translating into conflicts in the country in question. Some sort of UN framework normally helps, although it is not a guarantee. Building peace is a far more fragile, complex, costly and drawn-out process than fighting a war. So a peace coalition normally needs to be much broader than a war coalition.

Lesson 7: Nation-building takes a longer time, and requires more resources, than most initially believe. As the first High Representative in Bosnia, I was told that everything should be concluded within a year. When the folly of this was recognized, a new deadline of two years was given. But five years after that has expired, the fourth High Representative is hardly less busy than the first. Bosnia and Kosovo might be easy cases compared with Afghanistan and Iraq. Peace-building requires an abundance of patience.

Faced with the "mother of all nation-building," we must succeed. Failure will fracture Iraq, destabilize the region and affect the entire world. Once upon a time, Iraq was part of the Fertile Crescent. The coming years will determine whether this crescent now will be fertile for the forces of reform and representative government, or for the forces of resentment and revenge.
So who is building what and for what reason and for whom? And where is this whom again in the process? Haliburton?

You failed already with Iraq. BTW, if you really believe that this is all done altruistically, you are wrong. Coherence of thought requires from a nation that is built on capitalism to grow and create friendships through more business opportunities. Which explains why most industrialized countries don't provide much assistance to the resourceless countries unless pressured by their population (i.e. Canada and Haiti for instance).

NEVER!

Instead, we stuck around just long enough to help them get back on their feet and become strong and prosperous, or else we just let them be.
Prosperous through a strong dependence to the U.S. economy. Again, check the bills attached to those interventions.

Most of them benefitted greatly because of our aid and ALL of them call their own shots.

We don't tell them what to do or impose our will on them.

PERIOD.
Of course there were benefits from such actions. What I am against is the portrayal by some people here who seem to believe that there are governments who provide such assistance without any self-interest.

Whether you help or not I don't care, but to portray the liberation of Iraq, Germany, Japan, Korea, Grenade and Panama as totally disinterested is madness!
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2004, 11:52 AM
 
doh.

Of course the US has a vested interest in the future of Iraq.

Who implied that we didn't?

We expect to get a return on our humanitarian investments.
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2004, 11:52 AM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
You're right. It IS more complicated. The text was long, boring and served what purpose? To rally your supporters here on MacNN??? To make you feel good? To give a name to the misguided terrorist insurgent?
Well, I am glad it impressed you to make an opinion...

The, "WHO IS THEY" is less important to me (as I am not going to mail them any holiday greetings or call their cell phone) as the, 'WHY IS THEY.'
Well, this is exactly what I suggested that we look at, especially considering how some participants of these fora can react when confronted with terrorism. The sinplicity of the reasonning is rather scary. The idea is not to defend or apologized to terrorist, but to better understand how they come to be. To paint them all as Muslims without any room for differentiation through that group is unfair, just as much as it is to impose a socio-political model that has nothing to do with the local culture. The so-called democracy will come on its own simply because people will fight for it.

I suspect you have a strange and scary 'film' running through your brain, angaq.

The fact that you chose an article which gave the "WHO IS THEY" is something like budding (or advanced) idolotry or fan worship or feeding your own feelings you might already have to emulate their example.
I don't respond to bullying and oversimplifications. Try again.

Don't say things you can't take back. - vmarks

Mods, take note.
That is right. Call for help if you can't have a discussion with good arguments.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2004, 11:55 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
doh.

Of course the US has a vested interest in the future of Iraq.

Who implied that we didn't?

We expect to get a return on our humanitarian investments.
Yeah.

People are money, especially whewre there is oil to grab.

So I guess those insurgents are fighting to keep their turf.. right?

I guess it make sense if it is their land...

Suddenly, it reminds me of the arrival of the White people in the Americas...
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
swrate
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2004, 12:52 PM
 
http://civilians.info/iraq/deaths_data.php

"Humanitarian return for the investment" made so far.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2004, 01:02 PM
 
White people in the Americas? What books are you reading? Care to sight some examples of a country that has not had issues of race, religion, and distasteful human nature. The only thing that frustrates me so much is the supposition that America somehow has the monopoly on imperialism. That everyone is dancing around camp fires and the evil Americans come under the cover of night to steal their peaceful sovereignty.

We won't pull out of Iraq because the Iraqi needs us to stay, it's as simple as that. Bush Sr.'s main stumbling block was those who believed we pulled out of Iraq too soon after having liberated Kuwait. This time we're seeing it through. They are not ready for us to leave. dictatorial factions are still too active in the region and the region would implode w/o our watchful eye. This is not hard for me to see, I wish you saw this too.

What creates terrorism? Well, it wasn't US missionaries, bags of grains and rice with USA printed on them, it wasn't AIDS grants, health clinics, and millions of dollars in infrastructure development. Yes, we had intentions that you might feel were less than honorable, but this is how democracies work. Mutual agreements that are win-win for both parties. Democracies are more productive, prosperous, and peaceful societies. If we wanted their oil we wouldn't be paying over $2.00 a gallon for gas and USA would own those spickets, this is not the case. Haliburton, I love it when folks bring up Haliburton. Clinton used Haliburton as well. They are the best corporation willing to work in those regions and know what they're doing and do it well. The corporation you work for makes a lot of money too and that money bleeds down to you making you among the wealthiest of men on a global scale.

The oppression of dictatorial regimes creates terrorism. Religious intolerance, gender persecution, oppressive labor policies, mass genocides, and the dispatching of henchmen to enforce oppressive law including the use of rape rooms and torture chambers. These are all common traits among the oppressed. In an environment of oppression a common enemy is needed. The uneducated are exploited for their emotional prowess and creating a common enemy is easily accomplished. They can point at our cultural indiscretions, success, and power and slowly begin to motivate the masses to hatred.
ebuddy
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2004, 02:44 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
No need to yell...

That is quite a long day... Saddam is dead, no WMDs were ever found.

You are done, and unless the Iraqi people want you to stay, your time is up. After all they are free, right?


Not quite, 'professor!'

Not until they have a government which represents the voice of the people, a working infrastructure as well as domestic and national security in place to provide for the people, will the job be done.

There are sinister forces waiting and hoping to prey upon the good freedom loving people of Iraq. Only when the people are ready to defend themselves and make their own decisions, free from these opportunistic forces, will the job be complete.

It's the 'minor, inconsequential' details of actually caring about the welfare of the people -- which IS what we're debating --(these necessary details which you seem willing to ignore) that betray your idealistic arguments as really being just an attack of the American government and it's foreign policy.

Your ideology seems less than ideal when we actually look at their ramifications if applied to real world challenges.

Maybe it is time for you to check how much these countries had to pay and for how long for their freedom... That is if they are done paying...

Nah, I refute your implication. But if YOU can cite information to support that assertion...

The prevailing agenda is the one about geopolitical control and accessibility of resources. Oil: 40 years to go at the actual rate of usage, without counting on China's gargantuesque needs to come. You can feel the worry in the political atmosphere. The U.S. policy on energy reflects exactly that sense of emergency...

Look, if you condemn our efforts to assure the World has a reliable supply of oil you must also condemn the countries who sell that oil.

And when you need some groceries or something for your computer, do you have a donkey cart hitched up outside, ready to make the trip to the store?

Admit it, we are ALL tied in to this struggle and those who ARE worrying about the continued supply of oil do so with you and I in mind as well as whatever other motivations you might (correctly or not) ascribe to them.

Look at the Nation Building programs of the RAND. Much to learn there...

And this pearl:

So who is building what and for what reason and for whom? And where is this whom again in the process? Haliburton?


A few years ago there was an advertising campaign for IBM which said, in effect: 'You'll never go wrong choosing to buy an IBM business computer system.'

What that means is that (at the time) IBM was a highly rated, reliable system that would perform well and provide good support should you need it.

When Haliburton was given the challenge of helping the Iraq re-building process, NO ONE could question their ability and the quality of their work. When the need was there, Haliburton was ready and able to perform.

Here in the US, there's a saying, "You get what you pay for."
Which means, though there may be other options to choose from, by paying a bit more, you get better quality.

Excuse us for not choosing a two-bit company for the job of re-building Iraq. Funny, that's another example of your great concern for Iraq that you would imply the good people of Iraq should settle for less than the best.

You failed already with Iraq. BTW, if you really believe that this is all done altruistically, you are wrong. Coherence of thought requires from a nation that is built on capitalism to grow and create friendships through more business opportunities.

The job isn't yet complete and I have never ascribed any one reason for our Iraq involvement.

However, if one used a scale (of justice???lol) to weigh the positives and the negatives of the Iraq war I suppose on one side of the scale, in your view, the NEGATIVE side we'd place the 'evil' financial reasons, the 'dirty filthy' need for a reliable supply of oil, the 'non-sensical' desire for the US to want to eliminate a real security threat to US (and his peace loving neighbors) posed by a brutal dictator and mad man.

If the ONLY altruistic reason were FREEDOM for the Iraqi people wouldn't you agree that alone would be enough to balance the scale in your mind?

By asserting otherwise one could only conclude you would prefer the good people of Iraq live in SOME kind of tyranny or oppression.

Again, your love for the good people of Iraq shines brightly.

As far as the profit motive, would your statement mean there are no Muslim millionaires? Billionaires? And if the Taliban DID control the supply of oil in the Middle East would they give that oil away?

Dream on.

Which explains why most industrialized countries don't provide much assistance to the resourceless countries unless pressured by their population (i.e. Canada and Haiti for instance).

Let's see, bin Laden is a millionaire. He gave $50,000 to the 9/11 hijackers. Oh, and I've heard he's given money to build schools (preaching hatred) and his few, small charitable donations have acted like a public relations campaign to win support from the impressionable, vulnerable Muslims in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Your statement belies a strange Communistic-like belief that the resources of a country should be donated to those less fortunate.

WE DO HAVE A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY. One where the sweat of one's brow and the quality of one's ideas are rewarded financially. I make no apologies for that. But if you look at the MAIN benefactor of charitable donations of time, goods, food, medical supplies, ideas and yes 'dirty, filthy' money, throughout the world, it isn't any of the countries of Europe, nor any of the oil rich nations, it is UNCLE SUGAR.

Furthermore, if Canada's system of government allows it's good, peace loving peoples to communicate their wishes to their leaders and the government responds to the people's wishes, I'd say that's a GREAT thing. Wouldn't you?

Ha!

Imagine the people in an Islamic country asking the Imam or Ayatollah or whoever the leader is to please help those less fortunate in another country.

I can't imagine it, in fact. Please tell me, exactly how does that process work?

I'll excuse you from using Arafat's leadership in this example as we all know he has horded the people's money (from WHOSE foreign aid donations?) for himself.

Of course there were benefits from such actions. What I am against is the portrayal by some people here who seem to believe that there are governments who provide such assistance without any self-interest.

We agree.

Whether you help or not I don't care, but to portray the liberation of Iraq, Germany, Japan, Korea, Grenade and Panama as totally disinterested is madness!
Every healthy, reasonable person acts in his or her own self interest. To deny this is ignorance or disingenuity.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2004, 05:18 PM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
When Haliburton was given the challenge of helping the Iraq re-building process, NO ONE could question their ability and the quality of their work. When the need was there, Haliburton was ready and able to perform.
What? Halliburton investigation list. Note that one investigation goes all the way back to the Balkans.
Here in the US, there's a saying, "You get what you pay for."
Which means, though there may be other options to choose from, by paying a bit more, you get better quality.

Yeah, $45 cases of soda and $100 loads of laundry.
Excuse us for not choosing a two-bit company for the job of re-building Iraq. Funny, that's another example of your great concern for Iraq that you would imply the good people of Iraq should settle for less than the best.
The good people of Iraq should be getting the first shot at *every* contract. It's supposed to be their country, right?
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2004, 09:36 PM
 
Originally posted by AKcrab:
What? Halliburton investigation list. Note that one investigation goes all the way back to the Balkans.

Yeah, $45 cases of soda and $100 loads of laundry.

The good people of Iraq should be getting the first shot at *every* contract. It's supposed to be their country, right? [/B]
AKcrab,

I will do you the favor of categorizing the allegations in the link you posted. A few dollars ALLEGEDLY overcharged by the company and a couple more bucks ALLEGEDLY used to get some work done in Nigeria, (that's what gets things done in some countries, FACE IT!) and...

Get THIS...

ALLEGED dirty kitchens run by one of Haliburton's subcontractors.

NO ONE has questioned the quality of their WORK.

Hey AKcrab, have they legalized pot up there in Alaska yet or do people just smoke it and not worry about the law?
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
CreepingDeth
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2004, 09:39 PM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Hey AKcrab, have they legalized pot up there in Alaska yet or do people just smoke it and not worry about the law?
Linky, for the assist.

The downside to legalizing pot.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:18 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,