ajwps
Active Member
Anti-American Saddam forces reduced by 1/5 and the number of insurgents continues to decrease. Yesterday's report reveals:
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
American Forces Making Headway in Iraq
- Thread starter ajwps
- Start date
S
Sevendogs
Guest
We do not see it watching news every day. Who and how could do census of numbers of insurgents or other our enemies in Iraq? They know nothing about this. This is a piece of Bush's propaganda. We will find more about this soon in the news.
jon_forward
Active Member
there is an abundance of imformation on the radio and tv 24/7. I would guess selective hearing and seeing on your part. propaganda of any sort died when the wall seperating the 2 germanys fell. this isnt the USSR and we[most of us]would not fall for it anyway.
M
MASTER G
Guest
Propaganda doesn't exist? What about the sky news reporter who killed himself after it came out he had faked a report about Iraq?
Psychoblues
Senior Member
I was taught that propaganda died when Jesus got his last breath on the cross. I've since learned better.
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
This may be slightly off topic, but why are we there? Regardless of the outcome now? WMD? Saddam a bad guy? Saddam trying to kill Bush I and Jr going for revenge?
Personally I believe all of the above and all are good reasons, in and of themselves. I do wonder why this isn't getting more play:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/i...S.html?ex=1071255650&ei=1&en=711c0684d7f4ab52
December 1, 2003
For the Iraqis, a Missile Deal That Went Sour
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
ASHINGTON, Nov. 30 It was Saddam Hussein's last weapons deal and it did not go exactly as he and his generals had imagined.
For two years before the American invasion of Iraq, Mr. Hussein's sons, generals and front companies were engaged in lengthy negotiations with North Korea, according to computer files discovered by international inspectors and the accounts of Bush administration officials.
The officials now say they believe that those negotiations mostly conducted in neighboring Syria, apparently with the knowledge of the Syrian government were not merely to buy a few North Korean missiles.
Instead, the goal was to obtain a full production line to manufacture, under an Iraqi flag, the North Korean missile system, which would be capable of hitting American allies and bases around the region, according to the Bush administration officials.
As war with the United States approached, though, the Iraqi files show that Mr. Hussein discovered what American officials say they have known for nearly a decade now: that Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, is less than a fully reliable negotiating partner.
In return for a $10 million down payment, Mr. Hussein appears to have gotten nothing.
The trail that investigators have uncovered, partly from reading computer hard drives found in Baghdad and partly from interviews with captured members of Mr. Hussein's inner circle, shows that a month before the American invasion, Iraqi officials traveled to Syria to demand that North Korea refund $1.9 million because it had failed to meet deadlines for delivering its first shipment of goods.
North Korea deflected the request, telling Mr. Hussein's representatives, in the words of one investigator, that "things were too hot" to begin delivering missile technology through Syria.
The transaction provides an interesting glimpse into the last days of the Hussein government, and what administration officials say were Iraq's desires for a long-term business deal for missiles and a missile production plant.
Bush administration officials have seized on the attempted purchase of the missiles, known as the Rodong, and a missile assembly line to buttress their case that Mr. Hussein was violating United Nations resolutions, which clearly prohibited missiles of the range of the Rodong.
It also establishes that Syria was a major arms-trading bazaar for the Hussein government, in this case hiding an Iraqi effort to obtain missiles, they say. Investigators say Syria had probably offered its ports and territory as the surreptitious transit route for the North Korea-Iraq missile deal, although it remains unclear what demands the government in Damascus might have made in return. Further, according to United States government officials and international investigators, the Iraqi official who brokered the deal, Munir Awad, is now in Syria, apparently living under government protection.
If it served as a middleman in this deal, as the documents suggest, Syria was acting in violation of Security Council resolutions even as it served on the Council and voted with the United States on the most important resolution before the war.
In an interview in Damascus on Sunday with The New York Times, Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, was asked about the deal described in the Iraqi computer files and said, "This is the first time I have heard this story."
He said Mr. Hussein "was never able to trust Syria, and he never tried and we never tried to make any relation between him and any other country because he did not trust us in the first place." For all its complaints about arms smuggling across the Syrian-Iraq border, Mr. Assad said, the United States had never cited specific cases, adding, "I told the Americans if you have any evidence that there is smuggling of weapons into Iraq, please let us know."
International inspectors note that the missile deal gone bad appears to be the most serious violation that has been found so far.
The investigators say they tripped upon it while looking for something far more nefarious evidence of a continuing nuclear program, or an active effort to accumulate more biological or chemical weapons.
"So far, there's really not much in that arena," said one official who has monitored the continuing search for weapons led by David Kay, a former weapons inspector who is now conducting the search for the Central Intelligence Agency.
After spending tens of millions of dollars in a search that continues on the ground in Iraq to this day, the official noted, "We've learned this much: that Kim Jong Il took Saddam to the cleaners."
The first clue of the North Korea-Iraq deal surfaced in public in October when Dr. Kay released preliminary findings of his inquiry into Mr. Hussein's program for developing unconventional weapons.
Dr. Kay said his team had uncovered evidence that Iraq had negotiated a deal with North Korea to acquire missiles, a transaction that a senior administration official said was apparently never detected by American intelligence agencies.
But when it came time for the North Koreans to deliver on the deal they demurred, according to an Iraqi account of the meeting in Syria that international inspectors found on an Iraqi computer hard drive. According to the files, the North Koreans said Iraq was under too much American scrutiny. Evidence amassed since the invasion of Iraq indicates the deal was for more than just missiles.
"This $10 million was a down payment, and not just a straight purchase for Rodong missiles, but for Rodong technology," said one American official who has read documentation on the deal. "Saddam's intent was to get the expertise from the North Koreans and, potentially, open his own production line." If the American interpretation is right, it is unclear where Mr. Hussein might have built the production line or how it could have avoided detection by American satellites.
The exact outlines of the deal remain unclear, the official said, "since the North Koreans ended up stiffing the Iraqis." The Iraqis were demanding their money back, "right up to the end," the official said.
American investigators say they have been able to discern outlines of the murky deal. The $10 million was too much to buy simply a missile or two, American and international experts say, and too little for an entire production line, leading to the conclusion that it was a down payment.
Investigators said information downloaded from Iraqi computer hard drives, at least one of which was obtained before the invasion of Iraq, allowed them to more specifically interrogate detained members of Mr. Hussein's inner circle. They, in turn, guided investigators deeper into the mountain of official documents seized during the war.
"You do that, sort of a back-and-forth process," said one American official. "You find something on a computer disk or in the pile of documents slowly being translated. That makes you ask questions of the detainees. Then you bounce back to the documents and so forth. That's how you get the bigger picture."
Administration officials say investigators found evidence of meetings between the Iraqis and North Koreans as least as far back as late 2001.
One administration official said American intelligence had evidence that "the agents from North Korea flew into Syria that's where the first meeting took place." Other officials said at least one round of talks was held in North Korea.
The final session was held in Syria in February of this year, just before the war began, officials said. On that trip, according to the Iraqi account of the meeting in Syria, the Iraqis were also seeking night-vision goggles, ammunition and gun barrels mostly through European middlemen. At that point, a huge American-British force had been built up on Iraq's southern borders, and it was clear that war was coming.
What is also interesting about the shopping list, however, is "what's not on it," said one investigator. "Nothing nuclear, no dual-use items, nothing about weapons of mass destruction."
American officials said the failed missile deal was brokered by an Iraqi firm called Al Bashair Trading Company, also spelled Al Bashir in some documents, which has been identified by American investigators as having had past involvement in arms trade for Iraq conducted with Yugoslavia.
The company reported directly to the Iraqi military command, investigators said, and had close ties to one of Mr. Hussein's sons, Qusay, who was killed in a battle with American troops in July.
The negotiations with the North Koreans were conducted by Munir Awad, the senior officer of Al Bashair, American and international investigators said.
"Munir Awad is one of three men who personally oversaw the most sensitive transfers of money from Al Bashair to other front companies and governments and worked directly for Qusay Hussein," said one American official. "Awad is believed to be in Syria under the protection of the Syrian government."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
Personally I believe all of the above and all are good reasons, in and of themselves. I do wonder why this isn't getting more play:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/i...S.html?ex=1071255650&ei=1&en=711c0684d7f4ab52
December 1, 2003
For the Iraqis, a Missile Deal That Went Sour
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
ASHINGTON, Nov. 30 It was Saddam Hussein's last weapons deal and it did not go exactly as he and his generals had imagined.
For two years before the American invasion of Iraq, Mr. Hussein's sons, generals and front companies were engaged in lengthy negotiations with North Korea, according to computer files discovered by international inspectors and the accounts of Bush administration officials.
The officials now say they believe that those negotiations mostly conducted in neighboring Syria, apparently with the knowledge of the Syrian government were not merely to buy a few North Korean missiles.
Instead, the goal was to obtain a full production line to manufacture, under an Iraqi flag, the North Korean missile system, which would be capable of hitting American allies and bases around the region, according to the Bush administration officials.
As war with the United States approached, though, the Iraqi files show that Mr. Hussein discovered what American officials say they have known for nearly a decade now: that Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, is less than a fully reliable negotiating partner.
In return for a $10 million down payment, Mr. Hussein appears to have gotten nothing.
The trail that investigators have uncovered, partly from reading computer hard drives found in Baghdad and partly from interviews with captured members of Mr. Hussein's inner circle, shows that a month before the American invasion, Iraqi officials traveled to Syria to demand that North Korea refund $1.9 million because it had failed to meet deadlines for delivering its first shipment of goods.
North Korea deflected the request, telling Mr. Hussein's representatives, in the words of one investigator, that "things were too hot" to begin delivering missile technology through Syria.
The transaction provides an interesting glimpse into the last days of the Hussein government, and what administration officials say were Iraq's desires for a long-term business deal for missiles and a missile production plant.
Bush administration officials have seized on the attempted purchase of the missiles, known as the Rodong, and a missile assembly line to buttress their case that Mr. Hussein was violating United Nations resolutions, which clearly prohibited missiles of the range of the Rodong.
It also establishes that Syria was a major arms-trading bazaar for the Hussein government, in this case hiding an Iraqi effort to obtain missiles, they say. Investigators say Syria had probably offered its ports and territory as the surreptitious transit route for the North Korea-Iraq missile deal, although it remains unclear what demands the government in Damascus might have made in return. Further, according to United States government officials and international investigators, the Iraqi official who brokered the deal, Munir Awad, is now in Syria, apparently living under government protection.
If it served as a middleman in this deal, as the documents suggest, Syria was acting in violation of Security Council resolutions even as it served on the Council and voted with the United States on the most important resolution before the war.
In an interview in Damascus on Sunday with The New York Times, Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, was asked about the deal described in the Iraqi computer files and said, "This is the first time I have heard this story."
He said Mr. Hussein "was never able to trust Syria, and he never tried and we never tried to make any relation between him and any other country because he did not trust us in the first place." For all its complaints about arms smuggling across the Syrian-Iraq border, Mr. Assad said, the United States had never cited specific cases, adding, "I told the Americans if you have any evidence that there is smuggling of weapons into Iraq, please let us know."
International inspectors note that the missile deal gone bad appears to be the most serious violation that has been found so far.
The investigators say they tripped upon it while looking for something far more nefarious evidence of a continuing nuclear program, or an active effort to accumulate more biological or chemical weapons.
"So far, there's really not much in that arena," said one official who has monitored the continuing search for weapons led by David Kay, a former weapons inspector who is now conducting the search for the Central Intelligence Agency.
After spending tens of millions of dollars in a search that continues on the ground in Iraq to this day, the official noted, "We've learned this much: that Kim Jong Il took Saddam to the cleaners."
The first clue of the North Korea-Iraq deal surfaced in public in October when Dr. Kay released preliminary findings of his inquiry into Mr. Hussein's program for developing unconventional weapons.
Dr. Kay said his team had uncovered evidence that Iraq had negotiated a deal with North Korea to acquire missiles, a transaction that a senior administration official said was apparently never detected by American intelligence agencies.
But when it came time for the North Koreans to deliver on the deal they demurred, according to an Iraqi account of the meeting in Syria that international inspectors found on an Iraqi computer hard drive. According to the files, the North Koreans said Iraq was under too much American scrutiny. Evidence amassed since the invasion of Iraq indicates the deal was for more than just missiles.
"This $10 million was a down payment, and not just a straight purchase for Rodong missiles, but for Rodong technology," said one American official who has read documentation on the deal. "Saddam's intent was to get the expertise from the North Koreans and, potentially, open his own production line." If the American interpretation is right, it is unclear where Mr. Hussein might have built the production line or how it could have avoided detection by American satellites.
The exact outlines of the deal remain unclear, the official said, "since the North Koreans ended up stiffing the Iraqis." The Iraqis were demanding their money back, "right up to the end," the official said.
American investigators say they have been able to discern outlines of the murky deal. The $10 million was too much to buy simply a missile or two, American and international experts say, and too little for an entire production line, leading to the conclusion that it was a down payment.
Investigators said information downloaded from Iraqi computer hard drives, at least one of which was obtained before the invasion of Iraq, allowed them to more specifically interrogate detained members of Mr. Hussein's inner circle. They, in turn, guided investigators deeper into the mountain of official documents seized during the war.
"You do that, sort of a back-and-forth process," said one American official. "You find something on a computer disk or in the pile of documents slowly being translated. That makes you ask questions of the detainees. Then you bounce back to the documents and so forth. That's how you get the bigger picture."
Administration officials say investigators found evidence of meetings between the Iraqis and North Koreans as least as far back as late 2001.
One administration official said American intelligence had evidence that "the agents from North Korea flew into Syria that's where the first meeting took place." Other officials said at least one round of talks was held in North Korea.
The final session was held in Syria in February of this year, just before the war began, officials said. On that trip, according to the Iraqi account of the meeting in Syria, the Iraqis were also seeking night-vision goggles, ammunition and gun barrels mostly through European middlemen. At that point, a huge American-British force had been built up on Iraq's southern borders, and it was clear that war was coming.
What is also interesting about the shopping list, however, is "what's not on it," said one investigator. "Nothing nuclear, no dual-use items, nothing about weapons of mass destruction."
American officials said the failed missile deal was brokered by an Iraqi firm called Al Bashair Trading Company, also spelled Al Bashir in some documents, which has been identified by American investigators as having had past involvement in arms trade for Iraq conducted with Yugoslavia.
The company reported directly to the Iraqi military command, investigators said, and had close ties to one of Mr. Hussein's sons, Qusay, who was killed in a battle with American troops in July.
The negotiations with the North Koreans were conducted by Munir Awad, the senior officer of Al Bashair, American and international investigators said.
"Munir Awad is one of three men who personally oversaw the most sensitive transfers of money from Al Bashair to other front companies and governments and worked directly for Qusay Hussein," said one American official. "Awad is believed to be in Syria under the protection of the Syrian government."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
Psychoblues
Senior Member
No, yes, yes. The article has already been posted.
E
eric
Guest
I was taught that propaganda died when Jesus got his last breath on the cross. I've since learned better.
That was totally unnecessary !
I have lost respect for you. Believe what you may but at least respect what other people may believe.
Psychoblues
Senior Member
I mean no disrespect for anyone, eric. I stated what I was taught. I learned I was taught wrong. You can lose all the respect for me, if you really ever had any, that you want but you can't change facts. And neither can I.
D
dijetlo
Guest
'Cause everybody is getting leary of leaks from the administration, which if you read carefully this is one. It includes nothing that can be independently verified and a whole lot of hearsay. Most mainstream media are a little to cautious to buy a seat on this flyer.Originally posted by Kathianne
I do wonder why this isn't getting more play:
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
No, yes, yes. The article has already been posted.
Not when I had posted, not that I can find. Perhaps another thread?
'Cause everybody is getting leary of leaks from the administration, which if you read carefully this is one. It includes nothing that can be independently verified and a whole lot of hearsay. Most mainstream media are a little to cautious to buy a seat on this flyer.
Just can't trust that RIGHT Wing NYT!
mean no disrespect for anyone, eric. I stated what I was taught. I learned I was taught wrong. You can lose all the respect for me, if you really ever had any, that you want but you can't change facts. And neither can I.
You do mean disrespect and I do blame you for your ignorance. At least check out the 'loyal opposition' it's only cogent.
Psychoblues
Senior Member
I certainly do not. What is "cogent"? Do you mean that mathmatically or as in a convincing way?
My objective here is to discern political inclination and nothing more. Disrespect would be counter to that objective.
But, of course as I stated in my opening post, I am a Democrat. I would expect that my views might be considered disrespectful or even insane in this place. I don't think the administration here shares that opinion.
I truly mean no disrespect. I may sound harsh but I see harsh posts, statements and replies all over this site. You are wrong, Kathianne. I did not come here to cause harm to you or your ideology nor did I come here disrupt your most enlightening discussions.
I did a thread in General about character assasination. Is your accusation without factual evidence an indicator that you also indulge in the same?
Really, I love you all. Your opinions are important to me although my political career is over, at least for the time. If I have offended you then I offer my sincere apology but please don't make me feel like I'm walking on eggshells each time I post here.
My objective here is to discern political inclination and nothing more. Disrespect would be counter to that objective.
But, of course as I stated in my opening post, I am a Democrat. I would expect that my views might be considered disrespectful or even insane in this place. I don't think the administration here shares that opinion.
I truly mean no disrespect. I may sound harsh but I see harsh posts, statements and replies all over this site. You are wrong, Kathianne. I did not come here to cause harm to you or your ideology nor did I come here disrupt your most enlightening discussions.
I did a thread in General about character assasination. Is your accusation without factual evidence an indicator that you also indulge in the same?
Really, I love you all. Your opinions are important to me although my political career is over, at least for the time. If I have offended you then I offer my sincere apology but please don't make me feel like I'm walking on eggshells each time I post here.
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
certainly do not. What is "cogent"? Do you mean that mathmatically or as in a convincing way?
Truly I mean in a logical way, whether or not that is convincing to you would certainly be debatable.
I did not come here to cause harm to you or your ideology nor did I come here disrupt your most enlightening discussions.
You really have not a whit of an idea of my ideology. Really. I've yet to state it on any board or thread.
I did a thread in General about character assasination. Is your accusation without factual evidence an indicator that you also indulge in the same?
As stated previously, if you can tell what I belive, good for you. I've never knowingly stated. If you can find something from me regarding what you refer to as character assinatation, let me know.
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
Stuff for tots, kids, and oldsters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/opinion/02BROO.html
December 2, 2003
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Boots on the Ground, Hearts on Their Sleeves
By DAVID BROOKS
oldiers in all wars are called upon to be heroes, but our men and women in Iraq are called upon to define a new sort of heroism. First, they must endure the insanity of war, fighting off fedayeen ambushes, withstanding the suicide bombings and mortars, kicking down doors and searching homes.
But a day or an hour or a few minutes later, they are called upon to enter an opposite moral universe. They are asked to pass out textbooks, improvise sewer systems and help with budgets. Some sit in on town council meetings to help keep the discussions on track. Some act like foundation program officers, giving seed money to promising local initiatives.
Trained as trigger-pullers, many are also asked in theater to be consultants and aldermen. They are John Wayne, but also Jane Addams.
Can anybody think of another time in history when a comparable group of young people was asked to be at once so brave, fierce and relentless, while also being so sympathetic, creative and forbearing?
When you read the dispatches from Iraq, or the online diaries many soldiers keep, or the e-mail they send home, you quickly sense how hard it is to commute between these two universes. Yet the most important achievements seem to occur on the border between chaos and normalcy.
At spontaneous moments, when order threatens to break down, the soldiers, aviators and marines jump in and coach the Iraqis on the customs and habits of democracy. They try to weave that fabric of civic trust that can't be written into law, but without which freedom becomes anarchy.
For example, in a New Yorker article, George Packer describes an incident in the life of Capt. John Prior. He was inside a gas station when a commotion erupted outside. A mob of people was furiously accusing a man of butting in line and stealing gasoline. Prior established that the man was merely a government inspector checking the quality of the fuel. Frazzled and exhausted, Prior took the chance to teach the mob a broader lesson: "The problem is that you people accuse each other without proof! That's the problem!"
Another soldier, who keeps a Weblog, collects toys and passes them out to Iraqi children. He brought a pile of toys to an orphanage, but the paid staff at the place rushed the pile to grab the toys for themselves "like sharks in a feeding frenzy," he writes. He has learned that if he stations himself with an M-16 over the toys, things go smoothly.
Another soldier writes of his dismay at seeing Iraqi parents give their kids toy guns as presents after Ramadan. He wonders, Haven't they had enough death? Don't they realize how dangerous it is for a kid to wander the street with a piece of plastic that looks like an AK-47?
When you read the diaries and the postings of the soldiers in Iraq, you see how exhausted they are. You see that their feelings about the Iraqis are as contradictory as the Iraqis' feelings about them. You see their frustration and yearning to go home.
But despite all this, their epic bouts of complaining are interrupted by bursts of idealism. Most of them seem to feel, deep down, some elemental respect for the Iraqis and sympathy for what they have endured. Far more than the population at home, the soldiers in the middle of the conflict believe in their mission and are confident they will succeed.
When you read their writings you see what thorough democrats they are. They are appalled at the thought of dominating Iraq. They want to see the Iraqis independent and governing themselves. If some president did want to create an empire, he couldn't do it with these people. Their faith in freedom governs their actions.
Most of all, you see what a challenging set of tasks they have been given, and how short-staffed they are. And yet you sense that in this war, as in so many others, the improvising skill of the soldiers on the ground will make up for the cosmic screw-ups of the people up the chain of command.
If anybody is wondering: Where are the young idealists? Where are the people willing to devote themselves to causes larger than themselves? They are in uniform in Iraq, straddling the divide between insanity and order.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/opinion/02BROO.html
December 2, 2003
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Boots on the Ground, Hearts on Their Sleeves
By DAVID BROOKS
oldiers in all wars are called upon to be heroes, but our men and women in Iraq are called upon to define a new sort of heroism. First, they must endure the insanity of war, fighting off fedayeen ambushes, withstanding the suicide bombings and mortars, kicking down doors and searching homes.
But a day or an hour or a few minutes later, they are called upon to enter an opposite moral universe. They are asked to pass out textbooks, improvise sewer systems and help with budgets. Some sit in on town council meetings to help keep the discussions on track. Some act like foundation program officers, giving seed money to promising local initiatives.
Trained as trigger-pullers, many are also asked in theater to be consultants and aldermen. They are John Wayne, but also Jane Addams.
Can anybody think of another time in history when a comparable group of young people was asked to be at once so brave, fierce and relentless, while also being so sympathetic, creative and forbearing?
When you read the dispatches from Iraq, or the online diaries many soldiers keep, or the e-mail they send home, you quickly sense how hard it is to commute between these two universes. Yet the most important achievements seem to occur on the border between chaos and normalcy.
At spontaneous moments, when order threatens to break down, the soldiers, aviators and marines jump in and coach the Iraqis on the customs and habits of democracy. They try to weave that fabric of civic trust that can't be written into law, but without which freedom becomes anarchy.
For example, in a New Yorker article, George Packer describes an incident in the life of Capt. John Prior. He was inside a gas station when a commotion erupted outside. A mob of people was furiously accusing a man of butting in line and stealing gasoline. Prior established that the man was merely a government inspector checking the quality of the fuel. Frazzled and exhausted, Prior took the chance to teach the mob a broader lesson: "The problem is that you people accuse each other without proof! That's the problem!"
Another soldier, who keeps a Weblog, collects toys and passes them out to Iraqi children. He brought a pile of toys to an orphanage, but the paid staff at the place rushed the pile to grab the toys for themselves "like sharks in a feeding frenzy," he writes. He has learned that if he stations himself with an M-16 over the toys, things go smoothly.
Another soldier writes of his dismay at seeing Iraqi parents give their kids toy guns as presents after Ramadan. He wonders, Haven't they had enough death? Don't they realize how dangerous it is for a kid to wander the street with a piece of plastic that looks like an AK-47?
When you read the diaries and the postings of the soldiers in Iraq, you see how exhausted they are. You see that their feelings about the Iraqis are as contradictory as the Iraqis' feelings about them. You see their frustration and yearning to go home.
But despite all this, their epic bouts of complaining are interrupted by bursts of idealism. Most of them seem to feel, deep down, some elemental respect for the Iraqis and sympathy for what they have endured. Far more than the population at home, the soldiers in the middle of the conflict believe in their mission and are confident they will succeed.
When you read their writings you see what thorough democrats they are. They are appalled at the thought of dominating Iraq. They want to see the Iraqis independent and governing themselves. If some president did want to create an empire, he couldn't do it with these people. Their faith in freedom governs their actions.
Most of all, you see what a challenging set of tasks they have been given, and how short-staffed they are. And yet you sense that in this war, as in so many others, the improvising skill of the soldiers on the ground will make up for the cosmic screw-ups of the people up the chain of command.
If anybody is wondering: Where are the young idealists? Where are the people willing to devote themselves to causes larger than themselves? They are in uniform in Iraq, straddling the divide between insanity and order.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
Psychoblues
Senior Member
You're right. I know not a whit concerning your ideology. But I do understand written words and the general directions of conversations. I've made a fairly good living doing just that.
I had a good time in Viet Nam, Panama and Persian Gulf I teaching guitar lessons to the natives there. Louie,Louie was always a favorite for them. I don't understand why as I never understood the words myself. But it's a great jamm. I guess it was the rawness of the chord structure and progression. Was I ever invited to any "town meeting"? No. Although I did officiate at a few funerals and elections. No biggie. The Grenada thing was just over too quickly I guess 'cause I didn't get to teach or officiate anything.
My point is, Katrinne, I don't mean to bust you bubble. You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to my own. I fought and will, if need be, fight again to protect that right.
Gotta go, puppy is goin' nuts trying to get out the door.
I had a good time in Viet Nam, Panama and Persian Gulf I teaching guitar lessons to the natives there. Louie,Louie was always a favorite for them. I don't understand why as I never understood the words myself. But it's a great jamm. I guess it was the rawness of the chord structure and progression. Was I ever invited to any "town meeting"? No. Although I did officiate at a few funerals and elections. No biggie. The Grenada thing was just over too quickly I guess 'cause I didn't get to teach or officiate anything.
My point is, Katrinne, I don't mean to bust you bubble. You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to my own. I fought and will, if need be, fight again to protect that right.
Gotta go, puppy is goin' nuts trying to get out the door.
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
Here's something that is close to my ideology, one a moderate dem, the other a moderate rep:
STOP THE CHEAP SHOTS AT THE PATRIOT ACT
By PETER KING & ED KOCH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email Archives
Print Reprint
December 5, 2003 -- THE brutal attacks of 9/11 brought home to the American people what should have been clear to our nation's leaders years before that fateful day: We are at war with Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their radical Islamic terrorist allies throughout the world and within our borders.
It is a war that threatens our national survival. Yet, listening to an increasingly shrill chorus of political voices, Americans could almost conclude that the real threat to our country comes not from bin Laden and al Qaeda but John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act.
Wesley Clark says the Patriot Act "essentially suspended habeas corpus." Howard Dean calls the law "shameful" and "unconstitutional." Dick Gephardt pledges to fire Aschroft in his "first five minutes as president." John Kerry assures his audiences, "There will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights" in a Kerry administration.
All this for a law that two years ago passed both houses overwhelmingly, with only one dissenting vote in the Senate.
For the most part, the Democratic presidential aspirants have not gone beyond applause-gathering one-liners. But former Vice President Al Gore recently delivered a detailed speech extremely critical of the Patriot Act and the motives of the Bush administration itself.
Gore accused the president and his attorney general of "constant violations of civil liberties," "putting our country in grave and unnecessary danger" and "using the war against terrorism for partisan advantage." His attacks centered on three parts of the Patriot Act: Sec. 214, which allows federal agents to delay giving suspects notice after a search has been carried out; Sec. 215, which allows searches of medical, business and library records of suspected terrorists; and Sec. 218, which allows surveillance of cell phones and Internet communications.
Before addressing these specifics, let's put Gore's case in its proper perspective by citing Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who recently said she hadn't found a "single abuse of the Patriot Act" - and when she asked the ACLU for any instance of abuse, was told, "they had none." Similarly, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said criticism of the Patriot Act "is both misinformed and overblown" and the Justice Department has "done a pretty good job in terms of implementing" the law.
Now for the details.
* The delayed notification in Sec. 213 was already the law in cases involving organized crime, narcotics and pornography. It makes common sense because it would be absurd to inform a suspected mobster or a terrorist during the course of an investigation that a listening device had been installed in his home or office.
* Sec. 215 - the much-feared "assault against librarians" - has not been used even once. Nonetheless, we strongly believe this is a weapon that must remain in the prosecutor's arsenal. There could well be cases, for instance, when it would be critical to learn whether a suspected terrorist is reading books on explosives or the structural design of office buildings, landmark sites, bridges or tunnels. It should also be noted that library records were instrumental in tracking down such murderers as the Zodiac killer and the Unabomber.
* Sec. 218 merely gives federal agents authority to conduct surveillance of cell phones and the Internet to the same extent they can surveil rotary phones. It would be foolhardy to let terrorists use the technology of modern telecommunications without fear of being detected.
The bottom line is that the criticisms by Gore and the other critics are shameful and irresponsible. Of course we gave our government added power in the aftermath of 9/11. These powers are essential to confront a new and deadly threat.
We are also well aware that all police powers are susceptible to abuse. That risk exists, however, every time we give a law-enforcement office a loaded weapon. It is the job of the Legislatures and the courts to guard against such abuses. Responsible criticism is essential to safeguarding our citizens against governmental abuse.
It is in that spirit of responsible criticism that we raise our own concern - on President Bush's claimed right (which is not a part of the Patriot Act) to declare American citizens "enemy combatants" and effectively take them out of the legal system by detaining them indefinitely without judicial review. This practice is too susceptible to well-intentioned error - let alone abuse - without built-in judicial safeguards. Similarly, whether or not an individual is entitled to proceed in a court action, any person being detained should have the right to consult with an attorney.
Having raised these concerns, we commend President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft for the superb job they have done over the past two years. Our liberties have been protected and our country has not been attacked. Unlike their critics, George W. Bush and John Ashcroft have had to face the hard choices and make the hard decisions. And they have made them well.
Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), is a member of the House Homeland Security Committee. Ed Koch was New York City mayor, 1978-1989.
Home
NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM
are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright 2003 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.
STOP THE CHEAP SHOTS AT THE PATRIOT ACT
By PETER KING & ED KOCH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email Archives
Print Reprint
December 5, 2003 -- THE brutal attacks of 9/11 brought home to the American people what should have been clear to our nation's leaders years before that fateful day: We are at war with Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their radical Islamic terrorist allies throughout the world and within our borders.
It is a war that threatens our national survival. Yet, listening to an increasingly shrill chorus of political voices, Americans could almost conclude that the real threat to our country comes not from bin Laden and al Qaeda but John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act.
Wesley Clark says the Patriot Act "essentially suspended habeas corpus." Howard Dean calls the law "shameful" and "unconstitutional." Dick Gephardt pledges to fire Aschroft in his "first five minutes as president." John Kerry assures his audiences, "There will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights" in a Kerry administration.
All this for a law that two years ago passed both houses overwhelmingly, with only one dissenting vote in the Senate.
For the most part, the Democratic presidential aspirants have not gone beyond applause-gathering one-liners. But former Vice President Al Gore recently delivered a detailed speech extremely critical of the Patriot Act and the motives of the Bush administration itself.
Gore accused the president and his attorney general of "constant violations of civil liberties," "putting our country in grave and unnecessary danger" and "using the war against terrorism for partisan advantage." His attacks centered on three parts of the Patriot Act: Sec. 214, which allows federal agents to delay giving suspects notice after a search has been carried out; Sec. 215, which allows searches of medical, business and library records of suspected terrorists; and Sec. 218, which allows surveillance of cell phones and Internet communications.
Before addressing these specifics, let's put Gore's case in its proper perspective by citing Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who recently said she hadn't found a "single abuse of the Patriot Act" - and when she asked the ACLU for any instance of abuse, was told, "they had none." Similarly, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said criticism of the Patriot Act "is both misinformed and overblown" and the Justice Department has "done a pretty good job in terms of implementing" the law.
Now for the details.
* The delayed notification in Sec. 213 was already the law in cases involving organized crime, narcotics and pornography. It makes common sense because it would be absurd to inform a suspected mobster or a terrorist during the course of an investigation that a listening device had been installed in his home or office.
* Sec. 215 - the much-feared "assault against librarians" - has not been used even once. Nonetheless, we strongly believe this is a weapon that must remain in the prosecutor's arsenal. There could well be cases, for instance, when it would be critical to learn whether a suspected terrorist is reading books on explosives or the structural design of office buildings, landmark sites, bridges or tunnels. It should also be noted that library records were instrumental in tracking down such murderers as the Zodiac killer and the Unabomber.
* Sec. 218 merely gives federal agents authority to conduct surveillance of cell phones and the Internet to the same extent they can surveil rotary phones. It would be foolhardy to let terrorists use the technology of modern telecommunications without fear of being detected.
The bottom line is that the criticisms by Gore and the other critics are shameful and irresponsible. Of course we gave our government added power in the aftermath of 9/11. These powers are essential to confront a new and deadly threat.
We are also well aware that all police powers are susceptible to abuse. That risk exists, however, every time we give a law-enforcement office a loaded weapon. It is the job of the Legislatures and the courts to guard against such abuses. Responsible criticism is essential to safeguarding our citizens against governmental abuse.
It is in that spirit of responsible criticism that we raise our own concern - on President Bush's claimed right (which is not a part of the Patriot Act) to declare American citizens "enemy combatants" and effectively take them out of the legal system by detaining them indefinitely without judicial review. This practice is too susceptible to well-intentioned error - let alone abuse - without built-in judicial safeguards. Similarly, whether or not an individual is entitled to proceed in a court action, any person being detained should have the right to consult with an attorney.
Having raised these concerns, we commend President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft for the superb job they have done over the past two years. Our liberties have been protected and our country has not been attacked. Unlike their critics, George W. Bush and John Ashcroft have had to face the hard choices and make the hard decisions. And they have made them well.
Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), is a member of the House Homeland Security Committee. Ed Koch was New York City mayor, 1978-1989.
Home
NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM
are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright 2003 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.
jon_forward
Active Member
nice post Kathianne
ajwps
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #18
Originally posted by Kathianne
From the article that you claim to agree with:
"We are at war with Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their radical Islamic terrorist allies throughout the world and within our borders."
Unfortunately the author of your article does not want to accept reality and blames on Osama, Al-Qaeda and all radical Islamics worldwide instead of placing the religion of evil directly on the rest of Islamic people who do not answer the blood spilled on those more responsible. The nice Muslims who are their brother's keepers.
Islam was started by a murderering bandit, rapist and pedophile based on existing written records from Mohammad's contemporaries that are studied to this day. This mentally ill child named Mohammad grew into a mentally ill adult who plagiarized the New and Old Testaments and then distorted them to make a new evil religion.
Refernce the book from 1913 on this subject title The Life of Muhammad.
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Canon_sell/
Muhammad talked with the angel Gareel (Gabriel) whenever he wanted to justify his band of robbers killing, raping and theft of the peoples his gang ran into while forcing those left alive to convert to his psychotic beliefs. The results of Muhammad's religion can be seen by the 14th century ignorance and povety of the majority of the Muslim people around the globe.
"It is a war that threatens our national survival. Yet, listening to an increasingly shrill chorus of political voices, Americans could almost conclude that the real threat to our country comes not from bin Laden and al Qaeda but John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act
."
The shrill chorus of political voices you speak of are those not interested in American national security but their own political fortunes in the '04 election.
Reality of the dangers inherent in this religion poses a real threat to the entire world which either may come soon or too late.
From the article that you claim to agree with:
"We are at war with Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their radical Islamic terrorist allies throughout the world and within our borders."
Unfortunately the author of your article does not want to accept reality and blames on Osama, Al-Qaeda and all radical Islamics worldwide instead of placing the religion of evil directly on the rest of Islamic people who do not answer the blood spilled on those more responsible. The nice Muslims who are their brother's keepers.
Islam was started by a murderering bandit, rapist and pedophile based on existing written records from Mohammad's contemporaries that are studied to this day. This mentally ill child named Mohammad grew into a mentally ill adult who plagiarized the New and Old Testaments and then distorted them to make a new evil religion.
Refernce the book from 1913 on this subject title The Life of Muhammad.
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Canon_sell/
Muhammad talked with the angel Gareel (Gabriel) whenever he wanted to justify his band of robbers killing, raping and theft of the peoples his gang ran into while forcing those left alive to convert to his psychotic beliefs. The results of Muhammad's religion can be seen by the 14th century ignorance and povety of the majority of the Muslim people around the globe.
"It is a war that threatens our national survival. Yet, listening to an increasingly shrill chorus of political voices, Americans could almost conclude that the real threat to our country comes not from bin Laden and al Qaeda but John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act
."
The shrill chorus of political voices you speak of are those not interested in American national security but their own political fortunes in the '04 election.
Reality of the dangers inherent in this religion poses a real threat to the entire world which either may come soon or too late.
DKSuddeth
Senior Member
Reality of the dangers inherent in this religion poses a real threat to the entire world which either may come soon or too late.
Like many other americans who do not understand what 'Islam' is truly about, you continue to further slant what would otherwise be considered a peaceful religion.
Islam is not a 'dangerous' religion, at least not anymore dangerous that christianity or catholocism is, but one of inner peace and harmony. The real dangers are those that wish to mutilate and skew Islam for their own advantage. Osama Bin Ladin is one of the worst violaters of this. People who consider this religion 'dangerous' without knowing about it completely are another.
If anyone were to sit and talk about Islam and the Quran with a 'sane' individual who was a scholar in theology could easily point out with exceptional points of reference that statements of violence against 'the infidel' do NOT refer to anyone of non-muslim ideology but to those that would agress against muslims.
I urge people to understand as much as possible about something before making judgement calls of this magnitude.
DK, I agree, but only to an extent.
There does seem to be more violence emanating from the Muslim community in the past 20 years than anywhere else. People as a whole have a hard time understanding 'suicide bombing'. The suicide bombs are prevalent amongst Muslim extremists. I do think a rather large portion of the violence can be attributed to the Qu'ran. Whether that be misguided loyalty or not is another argument.
The hatred should be towards the extremists though, not the entire community. I don't want to be held liable for what other Christians do, nor do I think all Muslims should be held accountable for the wrongdoings of others.
There does seem to be more violence emanating from the Muslim community in the past 20 years than anywhere else. People as a whole have a hard time understanding 'suicide bombing'. The suicide bombs are prevalent amongst Muslim extremists. I do think a rather large portion of the violence can be attributed to the Qu'ran. Whether that be misguided loyalty or not is another argument.
The hatred should be towards the extremists though, not the entire community. I don't want to be held liable for what other Christians do, nor do I think all Muslims should be held accountable for the wrongdoings of others.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 107
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 281
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 187
- Replies
- 49
- Views
- 789
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 93
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 106
- Views
- 709
- Replies
- 324
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 331
- Views
- 4K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8049
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-