| To: NickSE who wrote (88326) | 3/31/2003 1:28:59 PM | | From: NickSE | | | | .....Amid the fighting, residents waved white flags, and several eagerly pointed out enemy positions to the U.S. troops, which led to the destruction of a large weapons cache and the confiscation of dozens of weapons, including advanced, Russian-made sighting scopes for mortars.
"They had Russian stuff, they had French stuff, they had Belgian stuff, and guess who's been the most vocal against this war?" said an angry Lt. David Chen, executive officer of Cyclone Company of the 4th Battalion, 64th Armored Regiment.....
latimes.com |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: FaultLine who started this subject | 3/31/2003 1:33:20 PM | | From: paul_philp | | | | Losing the War on the Air
techcentralstation.com
Yes, the television networks have done a thoroughly unimpressive job of covering the war. And it's surprising. After all, cable television covered the first Gulf War pretty well, and now they have the benefits of drastically advanced communications technology, allowing embedded reporters to send back reports from wherever they are, live and almost unedited.
And that's a lot of the problem. The "embedding" program has been a stroke of genius for the Pentagon, but it's been a disaster for the networks. The embedded journalists have come to identify with their units, and have formed a bond with American soldiers and Marines that will likely last a lifetime and fundamentally alter the character of the press in terms of its relations with the military. And - because they're embedded with units and traveling with ordinary soldiers - they're sending back a soldier's-eye-view of the war, which the networks feel they have to air because of its immediacy, and because they've invested so much in the technology that makes such reportage possible. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Ron who wrote (88308) | 3/31/2003 1:38:45 PM | | From: Sun Tzu | | | | There were reports last week that Iraqi exiles, including fervent Shiites, were crossing into Iraq by car and bus from Jordan and Syria to get into the fight on the side of the Iraqi government. Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. Middle East operative, told me in a telephone call from Jordan, “Everybody wants to fight. The whole nation of Iraq is fighting to defend Iraq. Not Saddam. They’ve been given the high sign, and we are courting disaster. If we take fifty or sixty casualties a day and they die by the thousands, they’re still winning. It’s a jihad, and it’s a good thing to die. This is no longer a secular war.” There were press reports of mujahideen arriving from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Algeria for “martyrdom operations.”
I guess if you really want a "clash of civilization" there is no way of stopping it. If this happens in full force though, it is a greatest damage to America (and the West) for many years to come. People can resolve issues over political leadership or even land issues. But a clash of civilization is about survival of one or the other. And it will not go away.
There had been an expectation before the war that Iran, Iraq’s old enemy, would side with the United States in this fight. One Iraqi opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmed Chalabi, has been in regular contact with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or sciri, an umbrella organization for Shiite groups who oppose Saddam. The organization is based in Iran and has close ties to Iranian intelligence. The Chalabi group set up an office last year in Tehran, with the approval of Chalabi’s supporters in the Pentagon, who include Rumsfeld, his deputies Wolfowitz and Feith, and Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Chalabi has repeatedly predicted that the Tehran government would provide support, including men and arms, if an American invasion of Iraq took place.
Now that is a dumb expectation when you call them part of an axis of evil and people closely tied with administration are on the record saying, "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran".
ST |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: kumar who wrote (88234) | 3/31/2003 1:45:18 PM | | From: KLP | | | | From Breaking AP News: Red Cross Visits Iraqi POWs, Awaits Permission to Visit Americans Held by Baghdad
By Jonathan Fowler
Associated Press Writer
Mar 31, 2003
GENEVA (AP) - The international Red Cross on Monday began visiting prisoners of war held by coalition forces in Iraq but has yet to receive word that it can see American POWs taken by the Iraqi military.
Balthasar Staehelin, Mideast head at the International Committee of the Red Cross, told reporters that 15 staff from the Swiss-based organization traveled to a camp in southern Iraq where coalition forces were holding 3,000 soldiers. >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
Although the ICRC is holding talks with Iraqi authorities, Baghdad has so far failed to give the organization access to coalition POWs. The Geneva Conventions requires Red Cross access to the prisoners. <<<<<<
Since the U.S.-led war began on March 20, Iraq has acknowledged capturing six Americans, including two pilots. Staehelin said the ICRC had "indications" that access would be granted.
The 1949 Geneva Conventions - which set basic humanitarian standards in armed conflict - empower the ICRC to visit POWs and monitor their treatment.
After captured Americans were shown being questioned on Iraqi television on March 24, the ICRC said it was unhappy about the broadcast. The ICRC expressed similar disquiet over television footage of captured Iraqi soldiers.
AP-ES-03-31-03 1246EST
This story can be found at: ap.tbo.com |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Sun Tzu who wrote (88134) | 3/31/2003 1:53:17 PM | | From: Hawkmoon | | | | I've read a fairly detailed study on this (including interviews with CIA gurus and what not) which indicated Clinton never intended to keep his word to NK.
Possibly.. since it was Carter who initated the agreement, not Clinton.. And it was rumoured that Clinton was really upset that Carter obligated the US to that project, since it was essentially a case of extorsion by Kim Il Sung.
It offends me greatly that for what amounts to next to nothing, our political leaders put us in a position that an abusive monsterous regime like NK's can claim we are dishonest and the have the moral ground.
Blame Carter...
And I would agree with you about maintaining our credibility were we dealing with a democracy. But I don't feel the same compulsion to deal with tyrants like Kim Jong Il, or Saddam Hussein, in such a naive manner. They play by machiavellian rules, and they play hardball. Thus, the only thing they truly respect is equal use of strong-arm tactics in dealing with them. Give them an inch, and they will take a mile.. I'm perfectly willing to deal with them at THEIR level, and not accord them the same respect that we should reserve for democratic societies.
Were NK truly interested in decreasing tensions on the peninsula, they would not have launched a missile right over Japan. Threaten to do so.. possibly, but not just come right out and do it by surprise.
As for Iran.. I'm not getting too worked up.. But I do believe the US is doing a piss-poor job of conveying it's message. And the lack of non-biased media coverage in the region is also hampering that.. Al-Jazeera is focusing on civilian casualities, but where have they been in covering the human condition of Iraqis prior to this war??
Public opinion like this does not necessarily spring forth unilaterally. Rallies don't take place spontaneously either.. Someone is funding them, just as many peacenik rallies are being funded by A.N.S.W.E.R., which is a front operation for World Worker's Party, which is a Marxist entity with little accountability for its funding.
I know.. I attended one in DC back in January where Ramsay Clark addressed the crowd. WWP and ANSWER folks all over the place.. And whoever wasn't carrying one of their placards seemed to be touting Lyndon Larouche banners...
I think we'll see the US/UK putting more Iraqis on the air in the coming weeks, letting them tell their stories about the fear and oppression they faced under Saddam. Then let the Arab street try and claim that this is occupation and not liberation.
Hawk@followthemoney.gov |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (87864) | 3/31/2003 1:56:16 PM | | From: Win Smith | | | | Cool.
Their most effective weapon was one unanticipated by US tank troops: a Russian-made Kornet AT-14 ATGM laser wire-guided anti-tank missile capable of penetrating 1100 to 1200 millimeters of steel armor protected by explosive armor at a distance of 3.5 km.
What a weapon, it can penetrate a meter of steel armor. I wonder how much a tank with meter-thick armor would weigh. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: JohnM who wrote (85816) | 3/31/2003 1:57:00 PM | | From: Gordon A. Langston | | | | www2.ocregister.com
My local Libertarian Editorialist for the OC Register here in CA spent a whole column on this ending up calling it "intimidation" and "policing their own". Then he writes this as the conclusion.
"It's a stated attempt by self-styled conservatives to "police their own," much in the way that National Review once booted acolytes of Ayn Rand and John Birch out of their movement. But these conservatives have little sway anymore, and most libertarians and anti-war conservatives would be far more likely to kick David Frum in the rump than sulk away in tears at the sight of his backside."
My bone of contention with him was a simpler matter to which he replied "the men and women of the armed forces were big boys and girls and could take some debate about the right or wrong of our efforts in Iraq."
Yes, I replied, and without a lot of whining. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: NickSE who wrote (88326) | 3/31/2003 2:01:23 PM | | From: The Philosopher | | | | | Yet another piece of evidence that most Americans have no real idea how lucky we are to live in this country and not under a dictatorship. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Hawkmoon who wrote (88339) | 3/31/2003 2:07:06 PM | | From: Sun Tzu | | | | > Blame Carter...
Well, I blame Carter for many things but that is not one of them. You are going back way too far. Reagan and Bush41 were there too...back to Clinton: As I read it, Clinton actually considered bombing NK fascilities and was leaning that way. But in the final analysis, he decided to buy time by signing the agreement but really trying to subvert NK. You could try to justify this on "self interest" grounds (I think the joury is still out on that) but certainly not on moral grounds.
> I don't feel the same compulsion to deal with tyrants like Kim Jong Il, or Saddam Hussein
Quite to the contrary. It is in dealing with people like them that we can measure how honorable we really are. It is all too easy to be ethical with one's friends. But how you deal with those you do not like says more about you than about them. Credibility is not something that you really need with your allies; it is needed most when dealing with your enemies.
ST |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| |
