OT Way to go Spain; that'll teach 'em. . .

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:47:37 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:41:34 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...

Dubyah's favourite whine is that everyone who is not 100%
behind him is giving in to terrorism.

What would you call it, instead?

I would it call it seeking a way of fighting terrorism
which is driven by knowledge and common sense
instead of testosterone.

Sounds like a speech from the PHB files. Has a whole lot of fluff
that doesn't say anything. Exactly *what* would you do?


Well.....

Firstly the US needs to hand control to the UN(if they want it???),
this will allay some of the fears of the Eastern world, the UN _with_
the Arab league should pull all US troops back into their bases on day
one, The local police force should do patrols and only be backed up by
military forces with the police having the say on when force is to be
employed and when to back off.(the sooner the Iraqi's see an Eastern
soldier instead of US/UK forces the better).

There are a number of problems with this, the main one being the US
with its 'I'm in charge attitude', they must be seen to cede control
to an international body both in spirit and in practice(strangly this
was suggested before the war started).

The second major problem is the attitude that the US has fostered in
Iraq, its now much harder to sell any foreign troops in Iraq as peace
keepers, they are seen as a occupying force and as such its an
infinitley harder job.

Local neibourhood watch schemes arranged by the Clergy (as this was
the only structure left after occupation, as the Army, security
services, Police, were desbanded, now that was a big mistake!!!), This
will give local autonomy to the people, they may choose their area to
be a no go area to the US, but they should accept that foreign troops
are required for security (Arab league to fill in here).

The last problem is to pursuade the rest of the world to come in and
risk their lives for what is undoubtly one of the worst US inspired
cock-ups, its quite easy to sit back and watch the US get deeper and
deeper, and even 'better' to watch Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfield trying to
remain credable in the face of undeniable evidence, This bailout
should not occur without a certain amount of humble pie being
consumed, the US really really needs to learn from this.
Sadly the US will continue its current policy, as humble pie is
infinitely worse than a mounting death toll and civil unrest, only a
change of Government will allow the US to back out with any dignity at
all.

Your question is a bit loaded, in the solution is a lot harder now
than it would have been if they had listened.

Rather reminds me of the old addage "if they had let all the kings
men have a go at fixing Humpty Dumpty _before_ all the kings horses
they may have had a chance of putting him back together again.

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Jarg" wrote in message
.com...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...


Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.

Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections.

There are always limits to a pure democracy - for instance the
judiciary or a constitutional head of state in most west minister type
democracies. Not that I am arguing that the current state in the
evolution of the Iranian democratic state is examplary, but it is
pretty good progress overall compared to the American supported ideal
- the Shah Monarchy.



I see little democracy in Iran, certainly no more than occured under the
Shah. How many of the candidates were disallowed by the mullahs in the last
elections?


I never said that Iran was a democracy in the image of the US - but it
is a functioning and vibrant democracy none the less, and more
importantly evolving towards a better state, with all the ups and
downs in its journey. Before comparing it to Swiss, UK or US model
please remember that they just had a bloody revolution and a bloodier
war and not few hundred years of fairly peaceful and economically
productive years in which to evolve.

And if you think that it is way too authoritarian then just look at
the manner in which in which a single terrorist attack has undermined
the civil liberties in the US and how that nation has taken the first
tentative steps towards the establishment of a police state.


What an absurd idea. Do you live in the US?


Iran has
had to deal with worse - including now the damocles sword of threat of
invasion for future possible transgressions.
Which isn't to say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does,
but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.

Exactly the same could be said, for instance, of the US. Most of its
citizens are poorly educated about Iraq or Iran and are constantly
exposed to indoctrination by the media, even the reviled US 'liberal'
media would be far right of center in most countries.



Most Americans are far better educated than the average Iranian with the
added benefit that they have a free press as a source of information. The
US media is much more varied than you allow.




And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.


Hard to say, but I doubt this is true.

Standing external threat, the axis of evil rhetoric, threats and talk
of invasions, expressed desire to overthrow the current regime make
the those in control justifiably paranoid and weakens the hands of the
reformers. This is obvious.

The Iranian government isn't just
reacting to US policy.

Ofcourse not. That would ascribe to the US for more influence than it
enjoys; but it is certainly a major (or THE major) factor in the
Iranian calculations.

It has its own agenda that clashes sharply with the
interests

Good for them. Which country does not have its own agenda? I dont see
any particular reason that Iran should apologitic about a 'Iran first'
agenda. And another way to put it would be that Western interests
clash sharply with persian interests. As far as I know Iran is not
publicly planning and equipping for global domination or a New Iranian
Century. No Iranian carrier battle groups conduct freedom of
navigation excercises off Boston Harbour, occasionally shooting down
airliners. There is no funding for overthrowing the Bush regime and
bringing 'true' democracy to America.



Don't try to pretend there is some equivalence between US and Iran. Iran
is a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy which has largely had a negative
influence in the world. The US is recognized as the leader of the
democratic world and a source of inspiration for many freedom loving people.
As for the presence of US force, they serve to help protect other nations in
the region from Iran. It's hard to imagine that any US sponsored change of
government in Iran wouldn't be an improvement.


of the civilized world.

This is unadulterated hubris.



Not at all. Examples of uncivilized behavior are abundant, for example
public beatings, sponsorship of terrorists, hostage taking, etc.




Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.


I thought you said they have a democracy! The Shah was by far the most
progressive government Iran has had, which isn't saying much.

Wow! the US installed Shah monarchy with its savak terror was an
improvement over the Mossadegh government?



Indeed it was. Mossadegh's only notable (and foolish) idea was the
attempted nationalization of British assets. He demostrated clear
tendancies towards demogogary. Many of his peers believed he aspired to
dictatorship. Whereas the Shah made a concerted effort to drag Iran into
the modern world, including efforts at increasing literacy, land reform and
voting rights for women. Incidentally, repression under the Islamic
government is well documented and much worse than it ever was under the Shah
and the "savak terror".


And look at the state of democracy in Iran, which broke its US
shackles with those still under western influence - KSA et al.

The economy
of Iran improved dramatically under the Shah and collapsed when he was
overthrown.

A rise and decline in which the US had a prominient part to play.



The current Iranian government has only itself is to blame, including its
poor economic policies - centralized planning, lack of diversification, and
state ownership of key industries for example - and the isolation resulting
from efforts to spread Islamic revolution.


Part of that was Saddams doing, but mostly it is the result of
foolish governement political and economic policies.

Politically it was a time for terror and counter-terror which any way
you look at it sucks. But what exactly were the foolish economic
policies and how could they have done it different in a state
undergoing a historical revolution? The economy always goes down the
drain during such times.


Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
credible.

I believe the polls were taken by independent news organizations.

Independent only in matter of speaking. US media is neither
disinterested nor completely unbaised or objective; it takes its
patriotic duty pretty seriously. What is acceptable and what
displeases the USG is clearly and publicly articulated and largely its
preferences are adhered to by US media companies. How much value would
you ascribe to a poll taken by Al-jazeera or by Fox? Being independent
is a prequiste but certainly not sufficient for being objective.




It doesn't follow that an organizations ideoliogical biases would show in
the polls it takes. In any case the polls being discussed are not by any
given organization but by many.

Jarg

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:47:37 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:41:34 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...

Dubyah's favourite whine is that everyone who is not 100%
behind him is giving in to terrorism.

What would you call it, instead?

I would it call it seeking a way of fighting terrorism
which is driven by knowledge and common sense
instead of testosterone.

Sounds like a speech from the PHB files. Has a whole lot of fluff
that doesn't say anything. Exactly *what* would you do?


Well.....

Firstly the US needs to hand control to the UN(if they want it???),

That would be the same UN that cut-and-ran after the bombing a few months
ago? Or the same UN that blew the nation building effort in Somalia?
Ooops--forgot--they are one and the same, huh? Yeah, right...

this will allay some of the fears of the Eastern world, the UN _with_
the Arab league should pull all US troops back into their bases on day
one,

LOL! Now that's a realistic posit! And just who would be prepared to step in
on Day One and take over the security mission? The *Spanish*, perhaps?! Or
maybe the French--uh-oh, I forgot--neither of them could get sufficient
forces into the TO in a timely manner without US support... So, maybe you
think the Syrians and Iranians should be trusted to handle the mission...?!

The local police force should do patrols and only be backed up by
military forces with the police having the say on when force is to be
employed and when to back off.(the sooner the Iraqi's see an Eastern
soldier instead of US/UK forces the better).

*What* military forces? You just took out the major force provider, and I
doubt the Brits have the resources available to pick up the rest of Iraq...


There are a number of problems with this, the main one being the US
with its 'I'm in charge attitude', they must be seen to cede control
to an international body both in spirit and in practice(strangly this
was suggested before the war started).

Better yet, we could "cede control" back to the Iraqis themselves, while
staying there to continue providing security support...oh, wait a second,
that is what we *are* going to do...


The second major problem is the attitude that the US has fostered in
Iraq, its now much harder to sell any foreign troops in Iraq as peace
keepers, they are seen as a occupying force and as such its an
infinitley harder job.

And that "attitude" is what exactly? Any concrete statistics to support what
the "attitude" is for the majority of Iraqis? Like that BBC poll a month or
so back...


Local neibourhood watch schemes arranged by the Clergy (as this was
the only structure left after occupation, as the Army, security
services, Police, were desbanded, now that was a big mistake!!!),

Was it? You know for sure that the level of violence would have been lower,
given that Saddam loyalists were entrenched in each organization?

This
will give local autonomy to the people, they may choose their area to
be a no go area to the US, but they should accept that foreign troops
are required for security (Arab league to fill in here).

Uhmmm--what "Arab league" fill are you talking about, eh? Toss out the
Syrians and Iranians (the latter not being a member of any Arab League,
but...); the Saudis seem to have their hands full combating the terrorist
threat within their own borders, and ditto that for the Yemenis. The
Kuwaitis are both too small in number and would likely not be extremely
welcome themselves. The Gulf states could offer only a token force--they
just don't have the muscle available in the needed numbers. Jordan could
probably contribute some troops--but then again, as we saw this weekend,
they also have other fish to fry. Which leaves you what, Libya, Egypt,
Morocco, and Algeria? Which you expect to be able to deploy enough troops
into theater on "Day One"?! I don't think so...


The last problem is to pursuade the rest of the world to come in and
risk their lives for what is undoubtly one of the worst US inspired
cock-ups,

Have you ever expressed any opinion favorable of the US in any form or
fashion? I don't recall it if you ever did...

its quite easy to sit back and watch the US get deeper and
deeper, and even 'better' to watch Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfield trying to
remain credable in the face of undeniable evidence,

What "undeniable evidence", and of what?

This bailout
should not occur without a certain amount of humble pie being
consumed, the US really really needs to learn from this.

Ahhh, the true sentiment of your philosophy begins to emerge..."dem nasty
'mercans need to be taught a lesson!" Which tends to discredit most of your
ranting as being rather biased...again.

Brooks

Sadly the US will continue its current policy, as humble pie is
infinitely worse than a mounting death toll and civil unrest, only a
change of Government will allow the US to back out with any dignity at
all.

Your question is a bit loaded, in the solution is a lot harder now
than it would have been if they had listened.

Rather reminds me of the old addage "if they had let all the kings
men have a go at fixing Humpty Dumpty _before_ all the kings horses
they may have had a chance of putting him back together again.

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

Jarg wrote:

"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...


Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.


Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections. Which isn't to say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does, but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.

Hmmm...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US president can veto political
decisions etc can't he?

Well.....

Firstly the US needs to hand control to the UN(if they want it???),

That would be the same UN that cut-and-ran after the bombing a few months
ago? Or the same UN that blew the nation building effort in Somalia?
Ooops--forgot--they are one and the same, huh? Yeah, right...

Fools rush in where angles fear to tread!!, seems quite apt at
present.

The UN presence (600 aid workers) in Iraq was a team who were trying
to run aid to a country crippled by numerous attacks, they were there
to stop the population dying of starvation, they left after the second
attack when 22 of that 600 got blown up and the US could not provide
basic security, by any measure its time to go!!!

The UN said 'don't go in yet, give the inspectors time to discover
the existance of WMD' and well see about a united front after that.

The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral decisive
force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US friendly
'version' of events.

Seems History is repeating itself....

this will allay some of the fears of the Eastern world, the UN _with_
the Arab league should pull all US troops back into their bases on day
one,

LOL! Now that's a realistic posit! And just who would be prepared to step in
on Day One and take over the security mission? The *Spanish*, perhaps?! Or
maybe the French--uh-oh, I forgot--neither of them could get sufficient
forces into the TO in a timely manner without US support... So, maybe you
think the Syrians and Iranians should be trusted to handle the mission...?!

The Spanish have stated quite plainly that a UN run force would be
acceptable, the alternative forces (IE those countries that want to
help the US get out of a bad situation) would patrol on day one with
Iraqi's police, then use a graduated response with the Iraqi police
being able to call in _reasonable_ force if required, and a whole lot
of force when necessary.


The local police force should do patrols and only be backed up by
military forces with the police having the say on when force is to be
employed and when to back off.(the sooner the Iraqi's see an Eastern
soldier instead of US/UK forces the better).

*What* military forces? You just took out the major force provider, and I
doubt the Brits have the resources available to pick up the rest of Iraq...

What are you babbling on about?, I'm talking about diffusing a US
made problem where the US presence _Is_ the problem, Keep them out of
sight unless absolutley necessary...that doesn't mean scuttle off back
stateside when the poor buggers who have to try and fix the mess
arrive.
No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear up
the mess you created.


There are a number of problems with this, the main one being the US
with its 'I'm in charge attitude', they must be seen to cede control
to an international body both in spirit and in practice(strangly this
was suggested before the war started).

Better yet, we could "cede control" back to the Iraqis themselves, while
staying there to continue providing security support...oh, wait a second,
that is what we *are* going to do...

No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have been
absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?, You
have to be a bit dense to not see the problem, these hand picked
Iraqi's don't represent the people, for the majority of Iraqi's these
are just western lackys,. the French vichy government springs to mind.

The second major problem is the attitude that the US has fostered in
Iraq, its now much harder to sell any foreign troops in Iraq as peace
keepers, they are seen as a occupying force and as such its an
infinitley harder job.

And that "attitude" is what exactly? Any concrete statistics to support what
the "attitude" is for the majority of Iraqis? Like that BBC poll a month or
so back...

Well 700 US deaths seems a pretty concrete statistic, several thousand
Iraqi's dead trying to fight the US seems like another good one, not
to mention the 50 odd attacks every day.

I a bit wary of polls, especially ones by gun toting military regimes,
70% of Iraqi's think the US is doing a good job, Hmmm. impressive,
however in the last Iraqi poll before the invasion 99% of Iraqi's
preferred Saddam and reelected him, Hmmm, even more impressive.

What was that questions they asked wasn't it something like "do you
want the US to stay or leave the country to anarchy and roaming gangs
of bandits" and "do you wish to vote for Mr Hussain or be beaten to
death and your family tortured" Naturally I'm paraphrasing here.

Local neibourhood watch schemes arranged by the Clergy (as this was
the only structure left after occupation, as the Army, security
services, Police, were desbanded, now that was a big mistake!!!),

Was it? You know for sure that the level of violence would have been lower,
given that Saddam loyalists were entrenched in each organization?

Well if Mr Rumsfield is correct there are large numbers of republican
guard roaming around attacking US forces in felluja, having them in
there old units would have made tracking them a lot easier, rather
than having several thousand ex soldiers milling around the town.,
their old command structure may have helped, I can't say how much it
would have helped, Just as I can't put a figure on how many more
insurgents were created by the felluja attacks, but attacking civilian
dwelling places certainly doesn't win hearts and minds, and you now
see the results, the insurgents have a rich new source of ex military
men who are slightly miffed about having there friends and relatives
killed by the US who state "its to make fullaja safe"!!!.

This
will give local autonomy to the people, they may choose their area to
be a no go area to the US, but they should accept that foreign troops
are required for security (Arab league to fill in here).

Uhmmm--what "Arab league" fill are you talking about, eh? Toss out the
Syrians and Iranians (the latter not being a member of any Arab League,
but...);

That doesn't preclude them from helping the US out now does it??.


the Saudis seem to have their hands full combating the terrorist
threat within their own borders, and ditto that for the Yemenis.

The
Kuwaitis are both too small in number and would likely not be extremely
welcome themselves. The Gulf states could offer only a token force--they
just don't have the muscle available in the needed numbers. Jordan could
probably contribute some troops--but then again, as we saw this weekend,
they also have other fish to fry. Which leaves you what, Libya, Egypt,
Morocco, and Algeria? Which you expect to be able to deploy enough troops
into theater on "Day One"?! I don't think so...

You don't need tens of thousands, you need peacekeepers, preferably
muslims, preferably sunni's or shia who will patrol areas where the US
presence is not tolerated by the locals (you know! the ones you freed
from Saddams oppression), you keep the US well out of sight in those
areas unless called for, its about diffusing the situation!!!.



The last problem is to pursuade the rest of the world to come in and
risk their lives for what is undoubtly one of the worst US inspired
cock-ups,

Have you ever expressed any opinion favorable of the US in any form or
fashion? I don't recall it if you ever did...

I don't recall you ever saying the US has cocked right up with Iraq, I
happen to agree with (IIRC) Abdul Nasser who said "The Americans dont
make simple mistakes, they make big huge complicated ones, which leave
the rest of us scratching our heads wondering if we have possible
missed something"


its quite easy to sit back and watch the US get deeper and
deeper, and even 'better' to watch Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfield trying to
remain credable in the face of undeniable evidence,

What "undeniable evidence", and of what?

Look at the pictures, read the news, compare to what is being said, a
week of fighting 70+ US troops dead, several hundred Iraqi's dead, and
its been a 'difficult' week.now the british are masters of
understatement this however boarders on the bizarre,

Another quote:-
"This makes you wonder about Rumsfeld, who a year ago declared that he
knew where Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were. Last week,
Rumsfeld said: "I certainly would not have estimated that we would
have had the number of individuals lost that we had lost in the last
week." This is the same Rumsfeld who said last year: "It is precisely
because of our overwhelming power and our certainty of victory that we
believe we can win this war and remove the regime while still striving
to spare innocent lives. Our military capabilities are so devastating
and precise that we can destroy an Iraqi tank under a bridge without
damaging the bridge. We do not need to kill thousands of innocent
Iraqis to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

From the same man who predicted "Rumsfeld boasted that Iraqi military
personnel would become our loyal friends once "they are persuaded that
the regime is history."

Now I may be a bit cynical, but 'loyal friends' dont tend to trade
fire , bomb, and RPG's at each other, at least not in Australia, New
York may be different.:-).

Do you see any difference in whats being said and reality?????

This bailout
should not occur without a certain amount of humble pie being
consumed, the US really really needs to learn from this.

Ahhh, the true sentiment of your philosophy begins to emerge..."dem nasty
'mercans need to be taught a lesson!" Which tends to discredit most of your
ranting as being rather biased...again.

I'm Biased because I think the US has made a tremendous error of
judgement!!!.

Hmm. why do I think the US _should_ learn from this?, perhaps it may
stop them invading a soverign country on the pretext of ficticious
WMD, thus avoiding the deaths of several thousand civilains, several
hundred coalition troops, and removing the western intellegence
services credability (this is very worrying as if the US does find out
something nasty who the hell will believe them.)

The US has made a mistake why don't you admit it, the Iraqi situation
is not going to go down in history as a glowing example of :-
1. Intellegence gathering.
2. Diplomacy.
3. International relations.
4. Religious harmony.
5. Strategy.
6. Tatics.


So as an unbiased observer of the situation in Iraq whats its
successes???


Cheers


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

Iraqi poll details

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...1849087D3D.htm.

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"John Cook" wrote:
Iraqi poll details


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...1849087D3D.htm.

The above link doesn't list the questions asked or what "groups" were
questioned.

The actual Iraqi poll details can be found he

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp...iraqsurvey.pdf

"John Cook" wrote in message
...

Well.....

Firstly the US needs to hand control to the UN(if they want it???),

That would be the same UN that cut-and-ran after the bombing a few months
ago? Or the same UN that blew the nation building effort in Somalia?
Ooops--forgot--they are one and the same, huh? Yeah, right...

Fools rush in where angles fear to tread!!, seems quite apt at
present.

What does geometry have to do with it?


The UN presence (600 aid workers) in Iraq was a team who were trying
to run aid to a country crippled by numerous attacks, they were there
to stop the population dying of starvation, they left after the second
attack when 22 of that 600 got blown up and the US could not provide
basic security, by any measure its time to go!!!

But you expect them to rush back in when someone else is providing the
security, and demonstrate a herewithto never displayed sense of serious
resolve...yeah, right. Would you be interested in purchasing some really
nice beachfront property in southern Arizona...? Or maybe a bridge...?



The UN said 'don't go in yet, give the inspectors time to discover
the existance of WMD' and well see about a united front after that.

They passed 1441. In what, 1991? And could not figure out how to effectively
enforce it for a bit over a decade. Real effective organization you got
there... And I don't recall any promises of a subsequent "united front";
given that we had France and Germany in the mix, any such promise, even if
it *did* exist (which I don't think it did) would have not been worth the
hot air it was made up of.


The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral decisive
force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US friendly
'version' of events.

LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they "rescued"?
You are letting your animosity towards all things US-ian gobber up your
tenuous grasp of the real facts. And while you are rereading Bowden's book,
note how much effort was required in order to get the Malays and Pakis
moving that day. Finally, you should review the facts of the matter in
regards to "unilateral action"--ISTR it was the UN Sec General who was
pushing the "Get Aidid and build a nation instead of just ensure they can
get relief suppplies distributed" strategy. Clinton was just gullible enough
to buy into it.


Seems History is repeating itself....

this will allay some of the fears of the Eastern world, the UN _with_
the Arab league should pull all US troops back into their bases on day
one,

LOL! Now that's a realistic posit! And just who would be prepared to step
in
on Day One and take over the security mission? The *Spanish*, perhaps?!
Or
maybe the French--uh-oh, I forgot--neither of them could get sufficient
forces into the TO in a timely manner without US support... So, maybe you
think the Syrians and Iranians should be trusted to handle the
mission...?!

The Spanish have stated quite plainly that a UN run force would be
acceptable, the alternative forces (IE those countries that want to
help the US get out of a bad situation) would patrol on day one with
Iraqi's police, then use a graduated response with the Iraqi police
being able to call in _reasonable_ force if required, and a whole lot
of force when necessary.

A-hem. And how are you getting the "alternative force" there in that
timeframe? Without US support, since you have dictated that we should
hightail it out of there on "Day One" (which also brings your increasingly
fragile grasp of military reality into question--never heard of "battle
hand-off", huh?).



The local police force should do patrols and only be backed up by
military forces with the police having the say on when force is to be
employed and when to back off.(the sooner the Iraqi's see an Eastern
soldier instead of US/UK forces the better).

*What* military forces? You just took out the major force provider, and I
doubt the Brits have the resources available to pick up the rest of
Iraq...

What are you babbling on about?, I'm talking about diffusing a US
made problem where the US presence _Is_ the problem, Keep them out of
sight unless absolutley necessary...

Oh! So now it is "unless absolutely necessary", not your previous, "Get the
hell out of Dodge before sundown, pardner!"? So what you are really
proposing is a token parade ground force, with the US remaining there to
handle the things when "absolutely necessary"? Flip-flop much?

that doesn't mean scuttle off back
stateside when the poor buggers who have to try and fix the mess
arrive.
No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear up
the mess you created.

No, you said we had to pull back on "Day One", quite specifically in fact.
Now you make it sound as if you want us there to do the heavy hitting, but
we should "keep off the grass, and stay in the back of the bus" otherwise,
huh? You ARE rather rabid with your anti-Americanism, aren't you?



There are a number of problems with this, the main one being the US
with its 'I'm in charge attitude', they must be seen to cede control
to an international body both in spirit and in practice(strangly this
was suggested before the war started).

Better yet, we could "cede control" back to the Iraqis themselves, while
staying there to continue providing security support...oh, wait a second,
that is what we *are* going to do...

No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have been
absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?,

Who said they don't? I keep hearing this "Iraqis want this, Iraqis want
that" crap...from non-Iraqis such as yourself. But when the independent
press does a real poll of the *Iraqis*, it seems the majority thought the US
was right to go into Iraq, and about 40% of them are in favor of continued
coalition presence (82% among the Kurdish minority), and only a *very* slim
majority (51%) were opposed to continued coalition presence. 70% think that
things are "good" now in Iraq, 56% think that they are better off now than
they were when the operation kicked off, and 71% are optimistic that things
will be even better next year. Given that last figure, where do reach this
astonishing conclusion that "the locals don't want" the provisional
government to take over? Keep in mind that only 30% of those polled rated
holding national elections in their top three priotrities, and only 8% put
it at number one; likewise, only 17% put regaining their own governance as
being in the top three, and only a whopping THREE percent put it at number
one. While an even fifty percent rated their local governance as "good". But
I guess you will conclude that this joint ABC/BBC

You
have to be a bit dense to not see the problem, these hand picked
Iraqi's don't represent the people, for the majority of Iraqi's these
are just western lackys,. the French vichy government springs to mind.

The second major problem is the attitude that the US has fostered in
Iraq, its now much harder to sell any foreign troops in Iraq as peace
keepers, they are seen as a occupying force and as such its an
infinitley harder job.

And that "attitude" is what exactly? Any concrete statistics to support
what
the "attitude" is for the majority of Iraqis? Like that BBC poll a month
or
so back...

Well 700 US deaths seems a pretty concrete statistic, several thousand
Iraqi's dead trying to fight the US seems like another good one, not
to mention the 50 odd attacks every day.

I a bit wary of polls,

I can see why, being as the most recent truly independent one (joint
BBC/ABC/ARD effort, not a "gun toting military regime"--or have you never
experienced the joy of listening to Peter Jennings bash our President?)
indicates that only a (GET THIS, now) whopping FIFTEEN percent want the
coalition to "leave now". It sort of sucks when the results don't fit your
preconceived notions, huh? And you know how many are in favor of your UN
governance? One--yep, that is a big *1*, percent. Makes you kind of a
minority, huh?


especially ones by gun toting military regimes,
70% of Iraqi's think the US is doing a good job, Hmmm. impressive,
however in the last Iraqi poll before the invasion 99% of Iraqi's
preferred Saddam and reelected him, Hmmm, even more impressive.

What was that questions they asked wasn't it something like "do you
want the US to stay or leave the country to anarchy and roaming gangs
of bandits" and "do you wish to vote for Mr Hussain or be beaten to
death and your family tortured" Naturally I'm paraphrasing here.

No, you are either verging upon lying or are just utterly clueless, based
upon reading the actual poll results. And if you think either the BBC or ABC
have been "pro-Bush" or "pro-involvement" in the Iraq case, you are SADLY
mistaken. You can gander at the actual results here...

abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/
Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html


Local neibourhood watch schemes arranged by the Clergy (as this was
the only structure left after occupation, as the Army, security
services, Police, were desbanded, now that was a big mistake!!!),

Was it? You know for sure that the level of violence would have been
lower,
given that Saddam loyalists were entrenched in each organization?

Well if Mr Rumsfield is correct there are large numbers of republican
guard roaming around attacking US forces in felluja, having them in
there old units would have made tracking them a lot easier, rather
than having several thousand ex soldiers milling around the town.,
their old command structure may have helped, I can't say how much it
would have helped, Just as I can't put a figure on how many more
insurgents were created by the felluja attacks, but attacking civilian
dwelling places certainly doesn't win hearts and minds, and you now
see the results, the insurgents have a rich new source of ex military
men who are slightly miffed about having there friends and relatives
killed by the US who state "its to make fullaja safe"!!!.

You have zero military experience? That would be my guess, based upon your
ridiculous assertion that having bad guys in your security units is better
than not having them there...


This
will give local autonomy to the people, they may choose their area to
be a no go area to the US, but they should accept that foreign troops
are required for security (Arab league to fill in here).

Uhmmm--what "Arab league" fill are you talking about, eh? Toss out the
Syrians and Iranians (the latter not being a member of any Arab League,
but...);

That doesn't preclude them from helping the US out now does it??.

Sure...what kind of stuff are you smoking? You missed out on where the
recent VX attempt came from? And you think the Iranians are interested in a
stable, independent Iraq?! Geeze.



the Saudis seem to have their hands full combating the terrorist
threat within their own borders, and ditto that for the Yemenis.

The
Kuwaitis are both too small in number and would likely not be extremely
welcome themselves. The Gulf states could offer only a token force--they
just don't have the muscle available in the needed numbers. Jordan could
probably contribute some troops--but then again, as we saw this weekend,
they also have other fish to fry. Which leaves you what, Libya, Egypt,
Morocco, and Algeria? Which you expect to be able to deploy enough troops
into theater on "Day One"?! I don't think so...

You don't need tens of thousands, you need peacekeepers, preferably
muslims, preferably sunni's or shia who will patrol areas where the US
presence is not tolerated by the locals (you know! the ones you freed
from Saddams oppression), you keep the US well out of sight in those
areas unless called for, its about diffusing the situation!!!.

Uhmmm--you do need tens of thousands. Take a gander at what is on the ground
now--you know, that coalition force that the vast majority of Iraqis want to
see remain in-place until such time as their own forces can handle security?
Which would indicate that the only thing needing defusing is the current
radical minority and their terrorist brethren. Stop making this out to be a
case of the majority of the Iraqis wanting us out NOW--that just is not
supported by the reputable poll results. BTW, do you have ANY supporting
evidence to back up YOUR claims? Any at all?




The last problem is to pursuade the rest of the world to come in and
risk their lives for what is undoubtly one of the worst US inspired
cock-ups,

Have you ever expressed any opinion favorable of the US in any form or
fashion? I don't recall it if you ever did...

I don't recall you ever saying the US has cocked right up with Iraq, I
happen to agree with (IIRC) Abdul Nasser who said "The Americans dont
make simple mistakes, they make big huge complicated ones, which leave
the rest of us scratching our heads wondering if we have possible
missed something"

Answer the question--have you expressed any opinion favorable of the US?
Ever?



its quite easy to sit back and watch the US get deeper and
deeper, and even 'better' to watch Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfield trying to
remain credable in the face of undeniable evidence,

What "undeniable evidence", and of what?

Look at the pictures, read the news, compare to what is being said, a
week of fighting 70+ US troops dead, several hundred Iraqi's dead, and
its been a 'difficult' week.now the british are masters of
understatement this however boarders on the bizarre,

Ahh, the "Chicken Little" approach. "The sky is falling!" Yeah, it is tough
sometimes--but the majority of the people over there want us to stay there
and finish the job. Interestingly, interviews with our own returning
military personnel seem to indicate the same thing--the majority of the
Iraqis are not hostile to us, and the troops believe in what they are doing.
And you don't--which is of course little surprise. Us bad ol' Mercans,
right?


Another quote:-
"This makes you wonder about Rumsfeld, who a year ago declared that he
knew where Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were. Last week,
Rumsfeld said: "I certainly would not have estimated that we would
have had the number of individuals lost that we had lost in the last
week." This is the same Rumsfeld who said last year: "It is precisely
because of our overwhelming power and our certainty of victory that we
believe we can win this war and remove the regime while still striving
to spare innocent lives. Our military capabilities are so devastating
and precise that we can destroy an Iraqi tank under a bridge without
damaging the bridge. We do not need to kill thousands of innocent
Iraqis to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Why do you post unattributed quotes, and even worse ones that are not
applicable to the discussion at hand?


From the same man who predicted "Rumsfeld boasted that Iraqi military
personnel would become our loyal friends once "they are persuaded that
the regime is history."

What same man? And those poll results seem to indicate that only a minority
of Iraqis want us out NOW, etc. So where is your supporting evidence
demonstrating that the majority of Iraqis allegedly are hostile to us, and
want us out immediately? Huh?


Now I may be a bit cynical, but 'loyal friends' dont tend to trade
fire , bomb, and RPG's at each other, at least not in Australia, New
York may be different.:-).

Did anyone say that *all* Iraqis would be amenable to the US action and
presence? Eh?


Do you see any difference in whats being said and reality?????

No, I see that you are trying to twist both to suit your usual anti-US bias.


This bailout
should not occur without a certain amount of humble pie being
consumed, the US really really needs to learn from this.

Ahhh, the true sentiment of your philosophy begins to emerge..."dem nasty
'mercans need to be taught a lesson!" Which tends to discredit most of
your
ranting as being rather biased...again.

I'm Biased because I think the US has made a tremendous error of
judgement!!!.

No, you are biased because you demonstrate a decidedly anti-American
propensity in all discussions, or at least those that I have watched you
wade into of late. Still awaiting those examples of your saying *anything*
good about the US...


Hmm. why do I think the US _should_ learn from this?, perhaps it may
stop them invading a soverign country on the pretext of ficticious
WMD, thus avoiding the deaths of several thousand civilains, several
hundred coalition troops, and removing the western intellegence
services credability (this is very worrying as if the US does find out
something nasty who the hell will believe them.)

The US has made a mistake why don't you admit it, the Iraqi situation
is not going to go down in history as a glowing example of :-
1. Intellegence gathering.
2. Diplomacy.
3. International relations.
4. Religious harmony.
5. Strategy.
6. Tatics.

Strategy and "tatics" are two things you have demonstrated an ample
misunderstanding of, Mr. "Let's get the bad guys into our security
forces--yeah, *that's* the ticket!"



So as an unbiased observer of the situation in Iraq whats its
successes???

I am not unbiased--I just admit it, unlike you.

Brooks



Cheers


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
Iraqi poll details


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...1849087D3D.htm.


Nice try, John! But you may want to read *all* of the results of that poll
(which is, by the way, the same one I already quoted to you elsewhere)--only
15% are in favor of us leaving NOW, the remainder wanting us to remain until
things are capable of being handled by their own security forces.

Brooks

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"Kerryn Offord" wrote in message
...


Jarg wrote:

"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...


Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.


Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections. Which isn't to
say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does,
but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.

Hmmm...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US president can veto political
decisions etc can't he?

Not irrevocably he can't. Provisions are in place for overriding a veto, and
they have indeed been used. DON'T try to cast the US as being similar to
Iran in terms of level of democratic freedom--you will lose, badly.

Brooks

Brooks