| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT--Even more good news from the Middle East!
Lebanon's Government Quits in Face of Mass Protest
Mon Feb 28, 2005 03:44 PM ET By Lucy Fielder BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon's Syrian-backed government resigned on Monday in a surprise decision greeted with jubilation by thousands of protesters in central Beirut gathering to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops. Prime Minister Omar Karami's government came under unprecedented pressure after the Feb. 14 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. Protesters turned their sights on the president and demanded he also step down. "The people have won," main opposition leader Walid Jumblatt told LBC television after Karami announced the resignation of the cabinet to a parliament session debating Hariri's killing. Ecstatic protesters, having got their wish for the government's resignation, chanted "Syria out" and "Freedom, sovereignty, independence." Syria has wielded political and military power in its smaller neighbor for decades. They also chanted "Lahoud, you're turn is next," in reference to pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud. Martyrs Square, by Hariri's grave, was a sea of Lebanese flags -- red and white with a cedar tree in the center. Thousands of protesters watched the debate live on large screens while loudspeakers blared patriotic songs. Cheers and applause erupted when Karami resigned. In parliament, opposition MPs wearing the red-and-white scarves that have come to symbolize their movement, gave a standing ovation. "Out of concern that the government does not become an obstacle to the good of the country, I announce the resignation of the government I had the honor to lead," Karami said. A 22-year-old Karami supporter was shot dead as supporters of the prime minister rioted in his home town of Tripoli, firing assault rifles in the air and burning tires and photographs of Hariri, witnesses and hospital sources said a Karami's government had a majority and was expected to win a no-confidence vote that was to close the debate on the killing that brought back memories of Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war. But peaceful protests against the government and its Syrian backers were unprecedented in their scale and scope. On Monday, banks, schools and businesses closed in a general strike the opposition called to coincide with the debate. A government ban on protests escalated the tension, but thousands defied it, some by camping out overnight in central Beirut. Hundreds of Lebanese soldiers with assault rifles had fanned out in downtown Beirut and barred roads to the protest scene and to parliament with metal barricades and barbed wire. But protesters who pushed through met little resistance. A Syrian official source said the resignation was a Lebanese "internal affair." White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters the event "represents an opportunity for the Lebanese people to have a government that is truly representative of their country's diversity." NATIONAL UNITY GOVERNMENT Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told an Italian newspaper a total withdrawal of his country's 14,000 troops from Lebanon, would be linked to peace with arch-foe Israel and was not therefore imminent. "From a technical viewpoint, the repatriation (of Syrian forces) could happen within the end of the year. But from a strategic viewpoint it will only happen if we get serious guarantees. In a word, peace," Assad said. Jumblatt offered an olive branch, appealing for calm and calling for a national unity government including opposition figures to lead in the runup to May parliamentary elections. "I believe the main aim was to bring down the government. We achieved this. Today we are at a new crossroads in the history of the country ... we have entered a stage where there must be calm," he said. Opponents of Syria's presence just wanted it to implement the Taif Accord that ended the civil war, Jumblatt told CNN. "I think we should now enter into serious negotiations with the Syrians according to the Taif agreement which implies honorable withdrawal from Lebanon," he said. Taif required that Syrian troops redeploy to eastern Lebanon then withdrawal would be negotiated. "The battle is long, and this is the first step, this is the battle for freedom, sovereignty and independence," opposition MP Ghattas Khouri told the crowd. Opposition MPs and many ordinary Lebanese hold Damascus and Beirut responsible for the deaths of Hariri and 17 others when a bomb blew apart his motorcade two weeks ago to the day. Assad again denied Syria had a hand in the bombing in the interview with la Repubblica newspaper. "For us it would be like political suicide," he said. "The time has come for the Lebanese people to be able to face their own decisions," U.S. Deputy Secretary of State David Satterfield, in Beirut for four days, said earlier on Monday. (Additional reporting by Nadim Ladki, Lin Noueihed and Roula Najem) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ruh-roh. If the Iraqi WMD *are* hidden in the Bekaa Valley region (as some have suggested), Syria has to be sweating the fact that they won't have a friendly government in there any longer to help them conceal the fact. |
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Ruh-roh. If the Iraqi WMD *are* hidden in the Bekaa Valley region (as some have suggested), Syria has to be sweating the fact that they won't have a friendly government in there any longer to help them conceal the fact. New evidence: Saddam's WMD in Lebanon Weapons transferred to Syria before war, then to Bekaa Valley May 20, 2004 WorldNetDaily Over the last few months, the U.S. intelligence community has received new evidence a sizable amount of Iraqi WMD systems, components and platforms were transferred to Syria in the weeks leading up to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service. But chances are the Bush administration won't be releasing this information for a while. The convoys were spotted by U.S. satellites in early 2003, but the contents of the WMD convoys from Iraq to Syria were not confirmed. Confirmation later came from Iraqi scientists and technicians questioned by a U.S. team that was searching for Saddam's conventional weapons. But all they knew was the convoys were heading west to Syria. But over the last few months, U.S. intelligence managed to track the Iraqi WMD convoy to Lebanon's Bekaa Valley. Through the use of satellites, electronic monitoring and human intelligence, the intelligence community has determined that much, if not all, of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons assets are being protected by Syria, with Iranian help, in the Bekaa Valley. The Syrians received word from Saddam Hussein in late 2002 that the Iraqi WMD would be arriving and Syrian army engineering units began digging huge trenches in the Bekaa Valley. Saddam paid more than $30 million in cash for Syria to build the pits, acquire the Iraqi WMD and conceal them. At first, U.S. intelligence thought Iraqi WMD was stored in northern Syria. But in February 2003 a Syrian defector told U.S. intelligence the WMD was buried in or around three Syrian Air Force installations. But intelligence sources said the Syrians kept dual-use nuclear components for themselves while transferring the more incriminating material to Lebanon. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Ruh-roh. If the Iraqi WMD *are* hidden in the Bekaa Valley region (as some have suggested), Syria has to be sweating the fact that they won't have a friendly government in there any longer to help them conceal the fact. New evidence: Saddam's WMD in Lebanon You're sooooo hopeful, it's almost funny. Up to this point, everything I've hoped for has come true. So why stop now? |
|
|
So, September 11 was the day we gave up on freedom, American
principles, and due process? Otherwise I don't get your reply, at all. How many of the 9-11 criminals were from Kuwait? (answer: ZERO) But one brown skinned raghead is the same as the next, right? |
So, eleven Kuwaitis remain in captivity. Otherwise I don't get your reply, at all. How many of the Kuwaitis had anything to do with WMD in Lebanon? (Answer ZERO, but a ridiculous response is better than an acknowledgement that something good occurred, right?) Do you get my drift? |
wrote in message oups.com... http://www.kuwaitifreedom.org/home.php " Kuwaiti Detainees Held as Illegal Combatants in Guantanamo " Right you are, Gould! That's even more good news! |
wrote in message oups.com... So, September 11 was the day we gave up on freedom, American principles, and due process? Otherwise I don't get your reply, at all. How many of the 9-11 criminals were from Kuwait? (answer: ZERO) But one brown skinned raghead is the same as the next, right? Many times, yes. |
You keep missing the big picture, John.
We embark on a crusade that makes a mockery of everything this country traditionally has stood for, imprison people without due process, follow our own citiznes around peering and prying into library reading lists, etc.....and you continue to declare every day with fewer than the prevailing average number of innocent people killed as "good news". Good news will be when we get serious about dismembering the organization that already attacked us, not when we continue down some unrelated list of people and nations who just might maybe, somehow, some way, someday, attack us in the future. (Taken to its logical extreme, that includes everybody). Give me liberty or give me death? For too many folks that has become "Forget about liberty. Give me an absolute assurance my family won't be attacked by a terrorist and I'll volunteer to set fire to the Bill of Rights" "People who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither." |
wrote in message
oups.com... http://www.kuwaitifreedom.org/home.php " Kuwaiti Detainees Held as Illegal Combatants in Guantanamo " Right you are, Gould! That's even more good news! ************** Your philosophies and politics may be as twisted as spaghetti in a blender, but you're probably the most honest right winger in the group. More people should be willing to express their feelings as candidly. |
wrote in message oups.com... You keep missing the big picture, John. We embark on a crusade that makes a mockery of everything this country traditionally has stood for, imprison people without due process, follow our own citiznes around peering and prying into library reading lists, etc.....and you continue to declare every day with fewer than the prevailing average number of innocent people killed as "good news". Good news will be when we get serious about dismembering the organization that already attacked us, You first need to dismember the governments of the countries that are supporting them. not when we continue down some unrelated list of people and nations who just might maybe, somehow, some way, someday, attack us in the future. (Taken to its logical extreme, that includes everybody). The large majority in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. are happy that they're being given the chance to vote in democratic elections. I'm sure the same is true for folks in Iran and Syria. And we can thank Bush's policies for giving them that chance. The chance to choose their leaders fills them with hope rather than despair...which is good, because despair is what breeds terrorism. Give me liberty or give me death? For too many folks that has become "Forget about liberty. Give me an absolute assurance my family won't be attacked by a terrorist and I'll volunteer to set fire to the Bill of Rights" Sign me up. "People who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither." OK Mr. Franklin. The problem with that statement is that the US has a history of trading liberty for security in times of war. |
wrote in message oups.com... wrote in message oups.com... http://www.kuwaitifreedom.org/home.php " Kuwaiti Detainees Held as Illegal Combatants in Guantanamo " Right you are, Gould! That's even more good news! ************** Your philosophies and politics may be as twisted as spaghetti in a blender, but you're probably the most honest right winger in the group. More people should be willing to express their feelings as candidly. The veil of anonymity provides that ability. ;-) |
Good news will be when we get serious about dismembering the
organization that already attacked us, NOYB wrote: You first need to dismember the governments of the countries that are supporting them. Agreed, definitely. So why did we attack Iraq? DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Good news will be when we get serious about dismembering the organization that already attacked us, NOYB wrote: You first need to dismember the governments of the countries that are supporting them. Agreed, definitely. So why did we attack Iraq? You missed the part where Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers, and was harboring known terrorists (like Abu Nidal) in Baghdad? |
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:03:35 -0500, DSK wrote:
Good news will be when we get serious about dismembering the organization that already attacked us, NOYB wrote: You first need to dismember the governments of the countries that are supporting them. Agreed, definitely. So why did we attack Iraq? DSK Go back and read the first post in this thread. There was a mention there of WMD in Lebanon. |
So why did we attack Iraq?
NOYB wrote: You missed the part where Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers, and was harboring known terrorists (like Abu Nidal) in Baghdad? So, we invaded Iraq because they harbored an anti-European terrorist about 20 years ago, and Saddam *claimed* (not verified) that he was supporting anti-Israeli terrorists? DSK |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 28 Feb 2005 16:42:02 -0800, wrote: You keep missing the big picture, John. We embark on a crusade that makes a mockery of everything this country traditionally has stood for, imprison people without due process, follow our own citiznes around peering and prying into library reading lists, etc.....and you continue to declare every day with fewer than the prevailing average number of innocent people killed as "good news". Good news will be when we get serious about dismembering the organization that already attacked us, not when we continue down some unrelated list of people and nations who just might maybe, somehow, some way, someday, attack us in the future. (Taken to its logical extreme, that includes everybody). Give me liberty or give me death? For too many folks that has become "Forget about liberty. Give me an absolute assurance my family won't be attacked by a terrorist and I'll volunteer to set fire to the Bill of Rights" "People who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither." The post had to do with WMD in Lebanon. Is that the 'big picture' I missed? We embarked on a crusade to rid the world of a regime that brutalized its own people, those of other countries, and threatened us. The evidence for the existence of the WMD keeps getting closer. Once it's found, what will your rationale consist of? Good news has been occurring in leaps and bounds. That is a fact, and your anti-US, anti-Bush negativism isn't going to change it. Stop your incessant whining. You're beginning to sound like Krause! I just hope Chuck is smart enough to realize the magnitude of what is happening right now in the Middle East (Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon). The Arab-Israeli conflict is being fueled by Syria and Iran...and those two countries are being marginalized into irrelevancy. |
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:31:00 -0500, "NOYB" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On 28 Feb 2005 16:42:02 -0800, wrote: You keep missing the big picture, John. We embark on a crusade that makes a mockery of everything this country traditionally has stood for, imprison people without due process, follow our own citiznes around peering and prying into library reading lists, etc.....and you continue to declare every day with fewer than the prevailing average number of innocent people killed as "good news". Good news will be when we get serious about dismembering the organization that already attacked us, not when we continue down some unrelated list of people and nations who just might maybe, somehow, some way, someday, attack us in the future. (Taken to its logical extreme, that includes everybody). Give me liberty or give me death? For too many folks that has become "Forget about liberty. Give me an absolute assurance my family won't be attacked by a terrorist and I'll volunteer to set fire to the Bill of Rights" "People who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither." The post had to do with WMD in Lebanon. Is that the 'big picture' I missed? We embarked on a crusade to rid the world of a regime that brutalized its own people, those of other countries, and threatened us. The evidence for the existence of the WMD keeps getting closer. Once it's found, what will your rationale consist of? Good news has been occurring in leaps and bounds. That is a fact, and your anti-US, anti-Bush negativism isn't going to change it. Stop your incessant whining. You're beginning to sound like Krause! I just hope Chuck is smart enough to realize the magnitude of what is happening right now in the Middle East (Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon). The Arab-Israeli conflict is being fueled by Syria and Iran...and those two countries are being marginalized into irrelevancy. Hell, even Hillary Clinton realizes the magnitude of the changes. So does Joe Biden. But not our Chuck, et al. He *is* smart enough, and I'm sure he understands the changes. But, I think he's trying to defend a line he's drawn in the sand. [Note: I'm referring only to Chuck with the 'smart enough' comment.] One can only go, "But...but...but..." so many times before they begin to see for themselves. |
"DSK" wrote in message . .. So why did we attack Iraq? NOYB wrote: You missed the part where Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers, and was harboring known terrorists (like Abu Nidal) in Baghdad? So, we invaded Iraq because they harbored an anti-European terrorist about 20 years ago, and Saddam *claimed* (not verified) that he was supporting anti-Israeli terrorists? I'm tired of listing the proof, so here's a link: http://www.husseinandterror.com/ |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:09:02 -0500, NOYB wrote:
You missed the part where Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers, and was harboring known terrorists (like Abu Nidal) in Baghdad? Abu Nidal? Geez, you were in diapers the last time that organization was active. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:09:02 -0500, NOYB wrote: You missed the part where Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers, and was harboring known terrorists (like Abu Nidal) in Baghdad? Abu Nidal? Geez, you were in diapers the last time that organization was active. I didn't realize there was statute of limitations on international murder. They're still hunting Nazis, aren't they? |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:13:40 -0500, NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:09:02 -0500, NOYB wrote: You missed the part where Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers, and was harboring known terrorists (like Abu Nidal) in Baghdad? Abu Nidal? Geez, you were in diapers the last time that organization was active. I didn't realize there was statute of limitations on international murder. They're still hunting Nazis, aren't they? That may be, but we don't invade countries looking for dead Nazis. Sabri al-Banna, aka. Abu Nidal, was killed in 2002, *before* we invaded Iraq. |
So, we invaded Iraq because they harbored an anti-European terrorist about
20 years ago, and Saddam *claimed* (not verified) that he was supporting anti-Israeli terrorists? NOYB wrote: I'm tired of listing the proof, so here's a link: http://www.husseinandterror.com/ Basically a long and tedious repeat of the same info I summarized above. Proven links between Iraq & anti-US terrorism: NONE OTOH Saddam was a good buddy to Bush Sr and Rumsfeld back in the good ol' days. Pictures don't lie! http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ DSK |
And some more good news:
Saudis Tell Syria to Withdraw From Lebanon 7 minutes ago By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer CAIRO, Egypt - Saudi officials told Syrian President Bashar Assad on Thursday that he must fully withdraw troops from Lebanon and begin soon or face strains in Saudi-Syrian ties. Assad promised only to study the idea of a partial withdrawal by later this month. The kingdom took a tough line as Assad met with the Saudi leader, Crown Prince Abdullah, and other officials in Riyadh. So far, Damascus has resisted Arab pressure for a quick pullout from Lebanon. Saudi officials told Assad the kingdom insists on the full withdrawal of all Syrian military and intelligence forces from Lebanon and wants it to start "soon," according to a Saudi official who spoke by telephone from Riyadh. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even the US has more allies in the Middle East than Syria. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: And some more good news: Even the US has more allies in the Middle East than Syria. The US has one ally in the Middle East. Which is equal to the number of allies Syria has right now. |
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:34:50 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
And some more good news: Saudis Tell Syria to Withdraw From Lebanon 7 minutes ago By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer CAIRO, Egypt - Saudi officials told Syrian President Bashar Assad on Thursday that he must fully withdraw troops from Lebanon and begin soon or face strains in Saudi-Syrian ties. Assad promised only to study the idea of a partial withdrawal by later this month. The kingdom took a tough line as Assad met with the Saudi leader, Crown Prince Abdullah, and other officials in Riyadh. So far, Damascus has resisted Arab pressure for a quick pullout from Lebanon. Saudi officials told Assad the kingdom insists on the full withdrawal of all Syrian military and intelligence forces from Lebanon and wants it to start "soon," according to a Saudi official who spoke by telephone from Riyadh. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even the US has more allies in the Middle East than Syria. Let's see...Saudi Arabia gets into it with Syria. We go in to Saudi Arabia to provide 'assistance' and take on Syria while we're there. Saudi Arabia then 'asks' us to stick around and protect them and their oil, so we put in a few air fields and other installations. We just 'happen' to be right across the pond from Iran. Could get really interesting! John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:34:50 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: And some more good news: Saudis Tell Syria to Withdraw From Lebanon 7 minutes ago By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer CAIRO, Egypt - Saudi officials told Syrian President Bashar Assad on Thursday that he must fully withdraw troops from Lebanon and begin soon or face strains in Saudi-Syrian ties. Assad promised only to study the idea of a partial withdrawal by later this month. The kingdom took a tough line as Assad met with the Saudi leader, Crown Prince Abdullah, and other officials in Riyadh. So far, Damascus has resisted Arab pressure for a quick pullout from Lebanon. Saudi officials told Assad the kingdom insists on the full withdrawal of all Syrian military and intelligence forces from Lebanon and wants it to start "soon," according to a Saudi official who spoke by telephone from Riyadh. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even the US has more allies in the Middle East than Syria. Let's see...Saudi Arabia gets into it with Syria. Saudi Arabia isn't going to get into it with Syria. But I'm glad that they're taking our (and the rest of the World's) side on this one. We go in to Saudi Arabia to provide 'assistance' and take on Syria while we're there. Saudi Arabia then 'asks' us to stick around and protect them and their oil, so we put in a few air fields and other installations. We won't go back into Saudi Arabia. We left there because our presence was bringing too much heat on the Saudi Royal family. They're in the midst of a civil war against the Wahabbists in their own country. |
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 13:27:38 -0500, John H wrote:
Let's see...Saudi Arabia gets into it with Syria. We go in to Saudi Arabia to provide 'assistance' and take on Syria while we're there. Saudi Arabia then 'asks' us to stick around and protect them and their oil, so we put in a few air fields and other installations. We just 'happen' to be right across the pond from Iran. Could get really interesting! Haven't been paying much attention, have you John? American troops in Saudi *is* the reason bin Laden declared war on us. One of bin Laden's demands was for American forces to leave Saudi, and of course our CIC accommodated the terrorist. Perhaps, that is why we haven't heard much from bin Laden lately, all his demands have been met. |
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:22:38 -0500, thunder wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 13:27:38 -0500, John H wrote: Let's see...Saudi Arabia gets into it with Syria. We go in to Saudi Arabia to provide 'assistance' and take on Syria while we're there. Saudi Arabia then 'asks' us to stick around and protect them and their oil, so we put in a few air fields and other installations. We just 'happen' to be right across the pond from Iran. Could get really interesting! Haven't been paying much attention, have you John? American troops in Saudi *is* the reason bin Laden declared war on us. One of bin Laden's demands was for American forces to leave Saudi, and of course our CIC accommodated the terrorist. Perhaps, that is why we haven't heard much from bin Laden lately, all his demands have been met. Whoooosh! John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"NOYB" wrote in message .net... "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:34:50 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: And some more good news: Saudis Tell Syria to Withdraw From Lebanon 7 minutes ago By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer CAIRO, Egypt - Saudi officials told Syrian President Bashar Assad on Thursday that he must fully withdraw troops from Lebanon and begin soon or face strains in Saudi-Syrian ties. Assad promised only to study the idea of a partial withdrawal by later this month. The kingdom took a tough line as Assad met with the Saudi leader, Crown Prince Abdullah, and other officials in Riyadh. So far, Damascus has resisted Arab pressure for a quick pullout from Lebanon. Saudi officials told Assad the kingdom insists on the full withdrawal of all Syrian military and intelligence forces from Lebanon and wants it to start "soon," according to a Saudi official who spoke by telephone from Riyadh. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even the US has more allies in the Middle East than Syria. Let's see...Saudi Arabia gets into it with Syria. Saudi Arabia isn't going to get into it with Syria. But I'm glad that they're taking our (and the rest of the World's) side on this one. We go in to Saudi Arabia to provide 'assistance' and take on Syria while we're there. Saudi Arabia then 'asks' us to stick around and protect them and their oil, so we put in a few air fields and other installations. We won't go back into Saudi Arabia. We left there because our presence was bringing too much heat on the Saudi Royal family. They're in the midst of a civil war against the Wahabbists in their own country. Ding, Ding, Ding give that man a prize! |
Here's some real news for you war mongers.
Shame, shame, shame on all of you. :-( U=2ES. Military Deaths in Top 1,500 Drumbeat of Attacks Continues to Roil Post-Election Iraq By TOM RAUM, AP AFP/Getty Images Of the 1,502 U.S. troop deaths in Iraq, at least 1,030 resulted from hostile action, the military said. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- =B7 Army Misses Recruiting Goal =B7 Another $1.8 Billion for Wars? =B7 Lawyer Seeks Delay for Saddam =B7 Iraq's Oil Industry Crippled Talk About It: Post | Chat BAGHDAD, Iraq (March 3) - The conflict in Iraq can be told in numbers and milestones, from the more than 1,500 troops who now have died to the number of weapons of mass destruction found - zero. Two American soldiers died in Baghdad of injuries from a roadside bomb and another was killed in Babil province south of Baghdad, the military said on Thursday. That brought to 1,502 the number of U.S. troops who have died since President Bush launched the invasion in March 2003, according to an AP count. There are other milestones, other important numbers, some reached, some soon to be, as the conflict in Iraq nears its third year. - Roughly 60,000 National Guard and Reserve troops are deployed in Iraq. As of Wednesday, 300 had died there since the war began. - May 1 will be the second anniversary of Bush's ''mission accomplished'' aircraft carrier speech in which he announced an end to major combat operations. - The price tag is over $300 billion and climbing, including $81.9 more just requested from Congress. The money also covers operations in Afghanistan and the broader war on terror, but the bulk is for Iraq. When Lawrence Lindsey, then chairman of Bush's National Economic Council, predicted in September 2002 that the cost of war with Iraq could range from $100 billion to $200 billion, the White House openly contradicted him and said the figure was far too high. He was eased out in a shake-up of Bush's economic team. ''Americans need to take note of these sorts of milestones because it's a way to show respect for the sacrifices of troops and reassess strategy,'' said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy analyst with the Brookings Institution. ''But I'm much more interested in trends,'' he added, citing indications pointing to the relative strength of the insurgency and whether violence is declining or increasing. On that, the signs are mixed. The top U.S. general in the region said that about 3,500 insurgents took part in election day violence in Iraq on Jan. 30, citing estimates from field commanders. Army Gen. John P. Abizaid suggested the failure to prevent millions of Iraqis from voting showed the insurgency was losing potency. ''They threw their whole force at us, we think, and yet they were unable to disrupt the elections because people wanted to vote,'' Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee this week. But his comments came just a day after one of the biggest attacks by insurgents since the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003. A suicide car bombing in the town of Hillah killed at least 125 people, including dozens of recruits for Iraq's security forces. From Jan. 1 until Iraq's election day, 234 people were killed and 429 people were injured in at least 55 incidents, according to an AP count. Casualties rose in February, with 38 incidents resulting in at least 311 deaths and 433 injuries. Meanwhile, the United States is losing some partners in its ''coalition of the willing.'' Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko announced this week that Ukraine would withdraw its 1,650-strong military contingent by October. Poland is withdrawing about a third of its 2,400 troops. Last year, Spain's new Socialist government withdrew its 1,300 troops. At the same time, Bush drew commitments during his visit to Europe last week from all 26 NATO countries for contributions to NATO's training of Iraqi security forces - either inside or outside Iraq or in cash. Even harsh war critic France will send one officer to help mission coordination at NATO headquarters in Belgium and has separately offered to train 1,500 Iraqi military police in Qatar. More than half of Americans remain convinced of the importance of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, though polls suggest widespread doubts about the handling of the war and Iraq's prospects. An AP-Ipsos poll in February found that 42 percent approved of the president's handling of Iraq, while 57 percent disapproved. A slight majority in recent AP-Ipsos polling expressed doubts that a stable Iraq can be established. Another milestone will come the day Iraq's security forces are sufficiently trained and equipped to deal with the insurgency - and to permit the United States to begin leaving. There have been conflicting reports on this, too. The administration says there are 140,000 ''trained and equipped'' Iraqi military, security and police officers. But Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, puts the number of Iraqi troops able to stand up to serious insurgent attack at fewer than 20,000. ''Everything we do in Iraq will fail unless we develop a convincing plan to create Iraqi forces'' able to defend their country without U.S. help, Cordesman said. Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said some administration documents suggest that there are no more than about 40,000 trained Iraq forces and that they are lightly equipped. ''We've been given wildly different numbers of these security forces,'' Levin complained to Abizaid. ''Senator, the big question doesn't really have to do with numbers; the question has to do with institution building,'' Abizaid responded. ''I remind you ... that institution building takes a long time.'' ''I agree,'' Levin said. ''But we shouldn't kid ourselves as to how long it does take.'' |
|
Warmongers?
How about all the people like yourself that oppose any action in Iraq and just wanted to let Saddam keep the status quo, doesn't that make all of you oppressors or at least enablers? Case in point if someone is getting mugged right in front of you, and you do nothing; then doesn't your coward ness make you just as guilty as the mugger because you have not taken action and allowed the mugger to commit his crime? Society cannot allow these types of things let this to happen anymore, we can't just look the other way. These injustices have allowed the creation of the terrorist of the world. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that we need to invade every country with a dictator who is abusing his people, but in the case of Iraq, it was the right thing to do and that is justified by the fact that the people of Iraq came out and voted against all odds. They have finally been heard after months and months of people like you drowning out their voices saying that we shouldn't have helped them. The effects of Iraq are spreading to other countries like Lebanon and elsewhere, where the people have heard from the USA for years that we are for freedom, but we have never shown them that are intentions are truthful by supporting the dictators that keep them suppressed. In Lebanon we are not dropping bombs but are giving support and putting pressure on Syria, thereby helping the people of Lebanon gain their own liberty. The positive changes in the Middle East are happening right in front of you and at greater speed than most thought. Although time will tell, at the moment Bush's strategy seems to have been right! :) |
John H wrote:
Does attempting to provide good news to go along with the bad make one a war monger ********************************* No, but discounting all aspects of the tragedy of war and concentrating only on the rare humanitarian moments or the rebuilding of bombed out infrastructure does. Rooting, tooting, blood-lusting, and abandoning critical thought in favor of flag waving patriotic zeal on the eve of war makes one a war monger. Discounting or rejecting other solutions and ignoring all evidence contrary to the trumped up justification for invading another country makes one a war monger. Despairing that we have not killed a sufficient number of foreign persons and calling for the wide spread use of nuclear weapons in a region (as some in this forum have done) makes one a war monger. Accepting ridiculous claims as the basis for the invasion of another country, and then allowing, accepting, endorsing, and applauding the tactic of shifting the justification between a series of additional reasons as the former claims are proven untrue makes one a war monger. When we were kids we were told that Russia was a threat to the US. They were likely to invade us and try to set up their preferred form of government here. Now that the US is doing *exactly* that elsewhere in the world, it is no longer an unthinkable, shameful, immoral action- it's a heroic quest? Believing that makes one a war monger. So if you see yourself described in one or more paragraphs above, shame on you for war mongering. |
Mule wrote:
Warmongers? How about all the people like yourself that oppose any action in Iraq and just wanted to let Saddam keep the status quo, doesn't that make all of you oppressors or at least enablers? *********** People who opposed taking any sort of action in Iraq and "just wanted to let Saddam keep the status quo" are very much un-like myself, so the rest of your nonsense is barely worthy of a reply. People like myself would have at least heard what Hussein had to say when he asked for a meeting with Bush or the Secty of State just hours before the invasion began, rather than responding that it was "too late" for diplomacy. Heck, for all we know he might have offered to go into exile if we'd let him take a couple of billion of his bucks with him. We would have been hundreds of billions ahead, with 100,000 deaths and injuries prevented, and probably further into the political reform of Iraq than we are today. When we faced the Russians in the Cuban Missle Crisis we used the military to make the other side "blink". That was statesmanship. We prevailed. Using the other side's "blink" as a prime opportunity to hit the opponent with eyes closed may be effective, but it's not statesmanship and it will come back to bite us on the butt. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:01 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com