Italy unearths large Iraq arms deal

[Ruby]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070812...arabellum_5;_ylt=AmMBEoiA5WVPpFTAQsW8VpAL1vAI

It seems strange that a pro-Western government, supported by the U.S. Army and other NATO countries on its own territory, would seek Russian or Chinese weapons through questionable channels," the anti-Mafia prosecutor wrote in seeking the arrest warrant that short-circuited the complex deal.

Its looking like many of the puppets in the Iraq govt are not behaving as the US puppet masters would like.

I am surprised this story hasnt gotten more attention. Or maybe its because we dont want to admit that the resistance IS originated by Iraqis themselves who have a RIGHT to resist a foreign invasion and occupation. I am sure its much better for the US agenda to keep trying to blame Iran so we can go forward with our 3rd invasion and occupation.

I am also guessing the Bush admin dosent want to talk about tidbits like this either.

A Pentagon report in June may have touched on another possible destination for weapons obtained via secretive channels, noting that "militia infiltration of local police remains a significant problem." Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq's civil war have long been known to find cover and weapons within the Interior Ministry.

In fact, in a further sign of poor controls on the flow of arms into Iraq, a July 31 audit report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office said the U.S. command's books don't contain records on 190,000 AK-47s and other weapons, more than half those issued in 2004-2005 to Iraqi forces. This makes it difficult to trace weapons that may be passed on to militias or insurgents.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, has described the Interior Ministry's accounting of police equipment as unreliable.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070812...arabellum_5;_ylt=AmMBEoiA5WVPpFTAQsW8VpAL1vAI



Its looking like many of the puppets in the Iraq govt are not behaving as the US puppet masters would like.

I am surprised this story hasnt gotten more attention. Or maybe its because we dont want to admit that the resistance IS originated by Iraqis themselves who have a RIGHT to resist a foreign invasion and occupation. I am sure its much better for the US agenda to keep trying to blame Iran so we can go forward with our 3rd invasion and occupation.

I am also guessing the Bush admin dosent want to talk about tidbits like this either.

Doesn't that negate your claim they are all puppets? You belittle millions of Iraqis that risk their lives to vote. You claim our military are murderous thugs. Get help, I am serious, the delusional world you live in can be helped with medication and therapy. See a Doctor.

 

[Ruby]

Doesn't that negate your claim they are all puppets? You belittle millions of Iraqis that risk their lives to vote. You claim our military are murderous thugs. Get help, I am serious, the delusional world you live in can be helped with medication and therapy. See a Doctor.

Not at all, we have had many puppets who didnt behave.

It actually SUPPORTS the notion they are a puppet regime, they obviously ARENT allowed to do this without US permission. Thats why some of our renegade puppets are doing it behind the US's back.

Arent you going to thank Italy for stopping it?

 

[dilloduck]

Not at all, we have had many puppets who didnt behave.

It actually SUPPORTS the notion they are a puppet regime, they obviously ARENT allowed to do this without US permission. Thats why some of our renegade puppets are doing it behind the US's back.

Arent you going to thank Italy for stopping it?

Are you are aware that Iraqis are not 100% against US presence. In fact there a quite a few of them that are hoping that the US presence can deter those who would like to control Iraq through violence.

 

[maineman]

Are you are aware that Iraqis are not 100% against US presence. In fact there a quite a few of them that are hoping that the US presence can deter those who would like to control Iraq through violence.

an interesting use of the unspecific terms "not 100%" and "quite a few".

So.... if "not 100%" actually means...say...75% that are against our presence..... and if "quite a few" actually means .... say.... seven million Iraqis..... would you say that that level of support was sufficient to warrant our remaining there?

 

[Ruby]

Now how shall we behave towards Iraqi resistance to US occupation? Do they or do they NOT have the right to defend against foreign invaders and occupiers?

Is that not a right all sovereign nations have?

Dont we have a right to take up arms against foreign invaders and occupiers?

 

[Ruby]

an interesting use of the unspecific terms "not 100%" and "quite a few".

So.... if "not 100%" actually means...say...75% that are against our presence..... and if "quite a few" actually means .... say.... seven million Iraqis..... would you say that that level of support was sufficient to warrant our remaining there?

You ask dangerous questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721_pf.html

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

and this guy has a dangerous idea of letting Iraqis VOTE on whether americans should stay or go!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061215/ai_n16902761

The executive summary of the report says, "The most important questions about Iraq's future are now the responsibility of the Iraqis. The United States must adjust its role in Iraq to encourage the Iraqi people to take control of their own destiny."

Then why not have them vote on their own destiny?

As the president said, "We're going to stay in Iraq to get the job done, so long as the government wants us there." Why not let the Iraqi people say whether they want us there? He says that we'll stay until the Iraqis establish a country that can sustain itself, govern itself, defend itself. Who will decide when that moment has come? Why not let the Iraqis be the "deciders"?

 

[dilloduck]

You ask dangerous questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721_pf.html



and this guy has a dangerous idea of letting Iraqis VOTE on whether americans should stay or go!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061215/ai_n16902761

Is America preventing them from voting on anything?

 

[Ruby]

Is America preventing them from voting on anything?

Interesting that you are avoiding the questions already asked in this thread.

America is calling the shots and any deeds americans dont like are villified and have to be done via illegal and covert channels. I dont know if you have noticed or not, but Iraq is under military occupation by a foreign country called the United States of America. Its been in all the news.

Why dont you take a shot at the question "do Iraqis have a right to fight off a foreign invasion and occupation?"

 

[dilloduck]

Interesting that you are avoiding the questions already asked in this thread.

America is calling the shots and any deeds americans dont like are villified and have to be done via illegal and covert channels. I dont know if you have noticed or not, but Iraq is under military occupation by a foreign country called the United States of America. Its been in all the news.

Why dont you take a shot at the question "do Iraqis have a right to fight off a foreign invasion and occupation?"

Don't try the patronizing bullshit. Prove to me that the US is preventing the Iraqi people from voting on ANYTHING.

 

[Ruby]

Don't try the patronizing bullshit. Prove to me that the US is preventing the Iraqi people from voting on ANYTHING.

The question has been asked twice now and you wont answer it, why not? Lets try again. Do Iraqis have a right to fight off foreign invasion and occupation?

The Iraqis havent even tried to create a vote on that, lets not be naive and pretend the US would welcome such a thing or even allow it. Lets also stop trying to divert attention from the real issue here. It seems that those trying to get weapons via black market avenues were Iraqis, and it seems they were headed for Iraqi resistance. How do we view Iraqi resistance to our occupation of their country? How shall we view and treat Iraqi resistance? Is there some reason you just keep dodging those issues and questions?

 

[dilloduck]

The question has been asked twice now and you wont answer it, why not? Lets try again. Do Iraqis have a right to fight off foreign invasion and occupation?

The Iraqis havent even tried to create a vote on that, lets not be naive and pretend the US would welcome such a thing or even allow it. Lets also stop trying to divert attention from the real issue here. It seems that those trying to get weapons via black market avenues were Iraqis, and it seems they were headed for Iraqi resistance. How do we view Iraqi resistance to our occupation of their country? How shall we view and treat Iraqi resistance? Is there some reason you just keep dodging those issues and questions?

Of course the have a right to fight. There--your moronic question has been answered. Couldn't find a shred of evidence for your strawman accusation, could you?

 

[ReillyT]

The question has been asked twice now and you wont answer it, why not? Lets try again. Do Iraqis have a right to fight off foreign invasion and occupation?

The Iraqis havent even tried to create a vote on that, lets not be naive and pretend the US would welcome such a thing or even allow it. Lets also stop trying to divert attention from the real issue here. It seems that those trying to get weapons via black market avenues were Iraqis, and it seems they were headed for Iraqi resistance. How do we view Iraqi resistance to our occupation of their country? How shall we view and treat Iraqi resistance? Is there some reason you just keep dodging those issues and questions?

That isn't really a fair question, and I agree with you that we should not be in Iraq.

Yes, a country has a right (to the extent that the presence of such a "right" actually means anything - better word would be "choice") to resist an invasion and occupation. Iraq resisted the invasion and lost. A democratic process was held, and the new elected government of Iraq supports our presence and has not yet specifically asked us to leave. I realize that the election wasn't exactly fair by the standards of western democracies, but it was an election, and a government is in place. Is the Iraqi government a puppet government? Probably somewhat, but I think it is a stretch to say that it only responds to US influence, and not the influences of its constituents. If the converse were true, a plan for allocation of oil revenues would be in place.

We rely on democratic processes where possible to determine the wishes of the public - even if it is not perfectly fair. If your suggestion is that any people should feel free to resort to violence where elections aren't completely fair, then you would have to equally respect the decisions of the people of Thailand, the Dem. Rep. of Congo, Zimbabwe, Venezuala, Malaysia, Sudan, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Morocco, Angola, Nigeria, etc., to engage in open warfare when their imperfectly elected governments take decisions that they disagree with. I can understand the basis for such a view, but it would be a much bloodier world.

 

[Ruby]

Of course the have a right to fight. There--your moronic question has been answered. Couldn't find a shred of evidence for your strawman accusation, could you?

I have no idea what "strawman accusation" you speak of but its good to see you finally answer the question!

Ok so now we have established that Iraqis do have a right to fight off foreign invasion and occupation. Then of course it follows that its wrong for a foreign nation to invade and occupy another. We are the foreign invader and occupying nation, we are wrong. Why do you support us doing somthing so heinously wrong to others?

 

[ReillyT]

I have no idea what "strawman accusation" you speak of but its good to see you finally answer the question!

Ok so now we have established that Iraqis do have a right to fight off foreign invasion and occupation. Then of course it follows that its wrong for a foreign nation to invade and occupy another. We are the foreign invader and occupying nation, we are wrong. Why do you support us doing somthing so heinously wrong to others?

Surely you don't believe every invasion of the territory of another sovereign country is wrong - I don't even believe that even the UN holds this view. If a genocide were taking place, would you support an invasion to prevent it? After the invasion, what else is left in the initial stages but (at least a short term) an occupation?

 

[dilloduck]

I have no idea what "strawman accusation" you speak of but its good to see you finally answer the question!

Ok so now we have established that Iraqis do have a right to fight off foreign invasion and occupation. Then of course it follows that its wrong for a foreign nation to invade and occupy another. We are the foreign invader and occupying nation, we are wrong. Why do you support us doing somthing so heinously wrong to others?

Your implication that America is preventing Iraqis from voting to send the troops home is a strawman. and bullshit.

I don't---I support us killing those who are planning to continue indisciminate killing as a means to spread the influence of islamic theocracy. Especially when that includes and targets Americans and occurs on American soil.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

The question has been asked twice now and you wont answer it, why not? Lets try again. Do Iraqis have a right to fight off foreign invasion and occupation?

The Iraqis havent even tried to create a vote on that, lets not be naive and pretend the US would welcome such a thing or even allow it. Lets also stop trying to divert attention from the real issue here. It seems that those trying to get weapons via black market avenues were Iraqis, and it seems they were headed for Iraqi resistance. How do we view Iraqi resistance to our occupation of their country? How shall we view and treat Iraqi resistance? Is there some reason you just keep dodging those issues and questions?

When the "Iraqis" start targetting their own people, they cease being part of a resistance against an occupation. It's pretty amazing how people like you are quick to point out the different factions and sects of the Iraqi people when they're referred to the blanket term "terrorists," but quick to forget it when arguing that "the Iraqis" are just "freedom fighters." How convenient. That's bullshit logic if I've ever seen it.

The US's responsibility in Iraq right now is to provide security for Iraq until a self sustaining security force is in place. It's pretty funny watching people like you state that we have a responsibility to safeguard the people of Iraq from car bombs, sectarian violence, and the reconstruction efforts while at the same time justifying violence against our own troops because we're the "occupiers."

 

[Ruby]

That isn't really a fair question, and I agree with you that we should not be in Iraq.

Yes, a country has a right (to the extent that the presence of such a "right" actually means anything - better word would be "choice") to resist an invasion and occupation. Iraq resisted the invasion and lost. A democratic process was held, and the new elected government of Iraq supports our presence and has not yet specifically asked us to leave. I realize that the election wasn't exactly fair by the standards of western democracies, but it was an election, and a government is in place. Is the Iraqi government a puppet government? Probably somewhat, but I think it is a stretch to say that it only responds to US influence, and not the influences of its constituents. If the converse were true, a plan for allocation of oil revenues would be in place.

We rely on democratic processes where possible to determine the wishes of the public - even if it is not perfectly fair. If your suggestion is that any people should feel free to resort to violence where elections aren't completely fair, then you would have to equally respect the decisions of the people of Thailand, the Dem. Rep. of Congo, Zimbabwe, Venezuala, Malaysia, Sudan, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Morocco, Angola, Nigeria, etc., to engage in open warfare when their imperfectly elected governments take decisions that they disagree with. I can understand the basis for such a view, but it would be a much bloodier world.

I think its a fair question. Just because they were too weak to repel the invasion dosent strip them of their rights of self defense or to resist an ongoing occupation.

An election held by an occupying force cant even be viewed as valid. It may provide us some shallow sort of relief from any guilt we have and some of the responsibility, but it isnt really valid. Its not about completely fair either, its beyond "unfair" when its held after invasion by occupiers.

I am not asserting people go violent when they dont agree with their govt, thats getting many miles away from the point that they have a right to RESIST FOREIGN invasion and occupation.

 

[maineman]

I don't---I support us killing those who are planning to continue indisciminate killing as a means to spread the influence of islamic theocracy. Especially when that includes and targets Americans and occurs on American soil.

I wonder how we actually distinguish those who are "planning" something and use their "plans" as rationale for slaughtering them. That is an interesting moral dilemma, is it not? You suggest that we have the right to massacre any group of muslims because we thought that they were planning something - especially when we thought they are planning to do something against Americans in America.

How many of the young Iraqis fighting the invader/conquerer/occupier of their own country do you think fit that description?

 

[Ruby]

When the "Iraqis" start targetting their own people, they cease being part of a resistance against an occupation. It's pretty amazing how people like you are quick to point out the different factions and sects of the Iraqi people when they're referred to the blanket term "terrorists," but quick to forget it when arguing that "the Iraqis" are just "freedom fighters." How convenient. That's bullshit logic if I've ever seen it.

The US's responsibility in Iraq right now is to provide security for Iraq until a self sustaining security force is in place. It's pretty funny watching people like you state that we have a responsibility to safeguard the people of Iraq from car bombs, sectarian violence, and the reconstruction efforts while at the same time justifying violence against our own troops because we're the "occupiers."

Iraqis targeting each other is because now a civil war will commence to fill a power vaccuum the foreign invasion and occupation have created. We triggered that and we cant fix that either. They have a right to self-determine and hopefully it could be done without bloodshed, but since this whole thing was shoved onto them shock and awe style and they must try to do it in the midst of chaos and rubble means it wont be without bloodshed.

We abandoned our responsiblity when we brought this down on them and its our responsibility to be honest with ourselves and know that we cant fix it because it interferres with their very basic right to self determine and that by intereferring, we cause MORE harm.

Dont like the word occupier? It bug you or somthing? Its the truth.