News & Politics - Iraq War - New Developments, and what they might mean - Page 2

mh67511 · 04-02-2004, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperDeluxe:
I'm all down for united Islam, in a moderate islamic state ruled by a democracy like Turkey.

That would be ok with me. I just have scary visions of angry mobs in the deep Middle East chanting "United Islam" and going on missions to rid the world of the "infidels."

yoshhh · 04-03-2004, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Powell Not Sure Iraq Trailers Were Labs

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) conceded Friday evidence he presented to the United Nations (news - web sites) that two trailers in Iraq (news - web sites) were used for weapons of mass destruction may have been wrong.

In an airborne news conference on the way home from NATO (news - web sites) talks in Brussels, Belgium, Powell said he had been given solid information about the trailers that he told the Security Council in February 2003 were designed for making biological weapons.

But now, Powell said, "it appears not to be the case that it was that solid."

He said he hoped the intelligence commission appointed by President Bush (news - web sites) to investigate prewar intelligence on Iraq "will look into these matters to see whether or not the intelligence agency had a basis for the confidence that they placed in the intelligence at that time."

Powell's dramatic case to the Security Council that Iraq had secret arsenals of weapons of mass destruction failed to persuade the council to directly back the U.S.-led war that deposed the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). But it helped mobilize sentiment among the American people for going to war.

As it turned out, U.N. inspectors were unable to uncover the weapons, but administration officials have insisted they still might be uncovered.

David Kay, who led the hunt for the weapons, showed off a pair of trailers for news cameras last summer and argued that the two metal flatbeds were designed for making biological weapons.

But faced with mounting challenges to that theory, Kay conceded in October he could have been wrong. He said he did not know whether Iraq ever had a mobile weapons program.

Powell told reporters that as he worked on the Bush administration's case against Iraq U.S. intelligence "indicated to me" that the intelligence was solid.

"I'm not the intelligence community, but I probed and I made sure, as I said in my presentation, these are multi-sourced" allegations, Powell said.

The trailers were the most dramatic claims, "and I made sure that it was multi-sourced," he said.

"Now, if the sources fell apart we need to find out how we've gotten ourselves in that position," he said.

"I have discussions with the CIA (news - web sites) about it," Powell said, without providing further details.

The trailers were the only discovery the administration had cited as evidence of an illicit Iraqi weapons program.

In six months of searches, no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons were found to bolster the administration's central case for going to war: to disarm Saddam of suspected weapons of mass destruction.

StellaSlight · 04-04-2004, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Shias 'kill US troops in Baghdad'

Seven US soldiers have been killed in fighting with Shia militia in the Iraqi capital Baghdad, the US military says.
At least 24 American troops are said to have been wounded in the clashes in the Sadr City area.

Sunday also saw at least 20 killed and more than 100 injured in clashes between Spanish-led troops and Shia demonstrators in the city of Najaf.

One soldier from El Salvador and one from the US were reportedly killed in that firefight.

The US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, said protesters had "crossed the line and moved to violence".

Radical

The Baghdad fighting broke out after members of a militia loyal to radical cleric Moqtada Sadr took control of police stations and government buildings in Sadr City, the US military said in a statement.

It said militiamen attacked the soldiers with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

Sadr City, on the eastern outskirts of the capital, is a stronghold of Moqtada Sadr supporters.

The violence in Baghdad came hours after a march by his followers on a coalition force base near Najaf ended in violence.

The protest took place outside the garrison of the Spanish military contingent, who lead the coalition forces in Najaf.

Troops from El Salvador and other Spanish-speaking countries are also based at the camp.

One of the marchers, Hussein Ali, said the first shots came from the demonstrators.

"Some protesters, who were armed, fired toward the Spanish troops, who responded by firing on the crowd. It was carnage," he said.

At least some of those on the march were armed members of Moqtada Sadr's banned Mehdi Army militia.

The demonstrators joined the protest after hearing that one of the cleric's senior aides, Mustafa al-Yacoubi, had been arrested.

Spanish troops in the area said they had no information on the arrest.

'Moved to violence'

The past few days have seen a number of demonstrations by Moqtada Sadr's followers, against the arrest of his aide and the closure of a pro-Sadr newspaper.

Mr Bremer said Iraqi people had acquired freedoms, but that they must be exercised peacefully.

"This morning in Najaf a group of people crossed the line and moved to violence. This will not be tolerated", he said.

On Sunday demonstrations by Shia radicals also erupted in the south of the country.

Gunfire broke out in the Baghdad protest, and British troops were involved in clashes in Amara in the south.

"We understand there are Iraqi casualties," a military spokeswoman in London said of the Amara clashes which she said began when soldiers returned fire after coming under attack.

In Baghdad, a spokesman for Mr Sadr said he had called for an end to protests, asking his supporters instead to gather at his offices or in mosques.

"Terrorise your enemy, as we cannot remain silent over its violations," his statement said.

It is not clear from the translation of his statement whether the cleric was literally calling on his followers to resort to violence.

But there was no doubt about the militancy of some of his supporters.

"Sheikh Moqtada Sadr is our leader. He's going to lead Iraq. Today we fought the occupation troops and we will keep fighting them until we take over," said 23-year-old Mohammad Hanoun, a protester wielding a chain in Baghdad.

US Marines killed

The American military also said on Sunday that two US marines had been killed in the province of Al-Anbar, a hotbed of anti-coalition violence.

"One marine was killed in action yesterday. The other marine died today from wounds received in separate action yesterday," it said in a statement on Sunday.

The US military declined to give any further information on the latest incidents for security reasons.

The US has lost 459 service personnel in Iraq since President Bush declared major combat over on 1 May 2003.

In Samarra, about 100km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, a bomb exploded near a checkpoint manned by Iraqi Civil Defence Corps personnel, killing three of them and wounding one, local hospital workers said.

And a car bomb exploded in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk. There were conflicting reports about casualties. Iraqi police said the target appears to have been a US convoy.

*Sarah Marie* · 04-06-2004, 02:33 AM

I heard on the radio this morning that since there have been problems over in Iraq recently and more American solidiars are gettin killed... they might deploy soldiars from like Germany and places they aren*t as needed and send them to Iraq... which scares the ***** outta me, cause my husband might be going to Honduras next week... and if he does go.. he could get sent from there to Iraq... personally.. I*m just ready for all this to be over [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Enigma, I.C. · 04-14-2004, 09:28 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...int/index.html

This is interesting. The US is asking Iran to help stop the violence in Iraq. So basically, we don't like Iran, it's part of the "axis of evil," but if they can help us we'll take it? That's consistent.

StellaSlight · 04-14-2004, 09:48 AM

The inconsistency isn't about Iran only, but also Shi'ites and Sunnis in general.
Like I said before, the US have always supported the Sunnis, making alliances, posing as friends in countries like Egypt, and tended to demonize the Shi'ites for the past 30 years mainly due to the conflict between the US and Iran. Now that Iraq is the main concern of US politics, we're all witnessing a spectacular change of mind from the US government, which is now claiming that the intervention in Iraq was good because it 'saved' the Shi'ites from the persecution by the Sunnis (Saddam being a Sunni himself).
Mind you, the Shi'ites haven't forgotten.

ceilirose · 04-14-2004, 10:00 AM

Is it really any more inconsistent than anything else he's done? Last night Bush talked about having the UN put together a coalition who could rule or help to rule Iraq after 6/30. So last year the US had no use for the UN but now they're the ones who are needed to help pull together the country after the US turns over sovereign power. Unfortunately it's still going to be a dangerous situation because I don't see how a group of people are going to govern Iraq given the increasingly volatile situation there.

SuperDeluxe · 04-14-2004, 06:05 PM

Actually the US did have a use for the UN, but the UN had its head stuck in the sand.

Makes perfect sense. the UN is not good enough body to be able to use military force. The UN is good for one thing, and one thing only, Nation building.

Hence why we didnt 'use' them last year, and trying to 'use' them this year.

Thats not inconsistant, thats smart business.

ceilirose · 04-14-2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperDeluxe:
Actually the US did have a use for the UN, but the UN had its head stuck in the sand.

Really? Weren't the UN inspectors basically correct about the existence of WMD? And it's potential danger to the US? When the US was warned about creating a more dangerous situation by invading Iraq (ie. Mubarek said that we would create more Al Quedas) no one listened and here we are with this volatile situation. Worst case scenario for our troops..they are fighting a guerilla war which they aren't equipped for.

Quote:

Makes perfect sense. the UN is not good enough body to be able to use military force. The UN is good for one thing, and one thing only, Nation building.

That's a matter of opinion..unfortunately it was the opinion of the current US administration.

Quote:

Hence why we didnt 'use' them last year, and trying to 'use' them this year.

Interesting spin..still a matter of opinion. The US has failed in creating any kind of a credible post war government. The memeber of the Governing Council are thought to be puppets of the US by most Iraqis. If the UN wasn't involved then it would probably be a certain civil war. With them involved there's a chance it may be averted..or at least delayed for awhile.

Quote:

Thats not inconsistant, thats smart business]

I don't think anything about this whole thing has been smart.

Enigma, I.C. · 04-14-2004, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperDeluxe:
Actually the US did have a use for the UN, but the UN had its head stuck in the sand.

Strongly disagreeing with the US does not equate to sticking its head in the sand.

StellaSlight · 04-15-2004, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Hence why we didnt 'use' them last year, and trying to 'use' them this year.

Thats not inconsistant, thats smart business.

Interesting spin. Especially when one considers that the US was trying to convince all the nations in the UN to go along with its plan (which didn't work, hence the strong anti-French, anti-German, anti-UN feelings among the coalition countries), and is now trying to drag out the UN to do the dirty job when things get tough for the US. Already tired of the mess they've created?

SuperDeluxe · 04-15-2004, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by StellaSlight:


Interesting spin. Especially when one considers that the US was trying to convince all the nations in the UN to go along with its plan (which didn't work, hence the strong anti-French, anti-German, anti-UN feelings among the coalition countries), and is now trying to drag out the UN to do the dirty job when things get tough for the US. Already tired of the mess they've created?

Tired of the mess? Thats what Most had in mind. Did not get UN permission, go in without UN support, then after a year or so, let UN come in and nation build.

You call interesting spin, I call smart business. We all know the circumstances of how the US got to Iraq, and what they want to do now. I feel like that was the plan all along, many disagree, but UN is really good for nation building.

ceilirose · 04-15-2004, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperDeluxe:


Tired of the mess? Thats what Most had in mind. Did not get UN permission, go in without UN support, then after a year or so, let UN come in and nation build.

You call interesting spin, I call smart business. We all know the circumstances of how the US got to Iraq, and what they want to do now. I feel like that was the plan all along, many disagree, but UN is really good for nation building.

That's revisionist history. If that was the case then why did the US originally bring in Jay Garner in an ill-fated attempt at nation building last spring? Why was Bremer negotiating with Sistani on caucuses vs free elections all through the fall? Why has billions of American dollars been spent in resurrecting Iraqi military and police forces?

I've said all along that the June 30 turnover date was picked to coincide with the US's July 4th holiday so Bush could use it as part of his re-election campaign. It would have been great symbolism for him but now I doubt it will get much attention at all.

Do you know that Sistani won't even speak to Bremer now? This reconstruction has for the most part been a failure on the part of the US. We should be thankful that the UN is coming in to help with the turnover.

StellaSlight · 04-15-2004, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperDeluxe:

I feel like that was the plan all along, many disagree, but UN is really good for nation building.

Well, not in the case of Iraq where most Iraqi openly express their hate towards the UN, which they consider a US-lapdog.

I think it's a nice spin because after criticizing the UN so much, minimizing its role in the world and openly questioning its existence, the US had no choice but to turn to the UN, planned or not. So it is contradictory when one country criticizes the UN so violently, ignore its advices, humiliate its experts, and now judges that it is the most adequate organization to build a nation over the mess they created.

Enigma, I.C. · 04-15-2004, 03:47 PM

We're begging Syria for help too:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...&u=ap/syria_us

This is the country we accused of harboring terrorists, hiding Iraq's non-existent weapons, whose border the US violated a few times, and whose economy the US is threatening with sanctions. And we are asking for their help?

"Help us Axis of Evil!"

[ 04-15-2004: Message edited Enigma, I.C. ]