war on iraq, a waste of time?

[Celumnaz]

While I recognize that it is easier to ignore the point than deal with it, the issue is not the PLAN now. The point is that there should be no need for a plan, that the administration should have been honest and responsible. Your question wanting a plan now is like two inmates on death row asking each other, "So, what's the plan?"

But if you insist on a plan, here's one. Impeach Bush on the same grounds as the attempt was made to impeach Clinton. He lied to Congress. Recognize the error and withdraw from Iraq. If the goal was to get rid of Hussein, then it has been done. You can tell the people that they are now free of him and also free to establish whatever form of government they want, not what the U.S. dictates to them.

Having withdrawn and charged Bush with his criminal behavior, valuable lessons could be learned for future administrations and the people at large.

You're making my point. You're concentrating on Bush. For the sake of being on the same page, even though I disagree with it, I've given you that point, Bush lied. Ok, we'll convict him. Great. Say he's in Jail now.

Now what? Say Bush is Impeached already. What's the Plan?????

Is the plan to whine more about Bush?

[Celumnaz]

umm.... when was it made permissable to "execute" Bush for lying?

It isn't, but people won't let the "Bush" thing go and think to the future. All it is is whine whine whine whine, no plan. So, I'd like to hypothetically take him out of the picture. He's gone. Dead. What do we do about Iraq?

When did Bush lie?

He didn't. It's an attempt at historical revisionism, just like Republicans get tagged with the "racist" tag when it's the Democrats that voted against eqality for Blacks, and have an ex-clansman as a Senator, and have Never appointed a Black person to high office. Just like it's Republicans that get tagged with "voter fruad" when the evidence is Overwhelming that it's Common practice in the Democratic party. If they repeat "Bush Lied" enough, with some psychobabble, the masses eat it up because they were primed to by the media.

But all of this is irrelivant. I'm giving up the truth for the sake of a solution. I'll assume Bush lied and we can have him thrown in jail.

Now what? What's the plan? Bush has a plan. What's Anybody elses?

Going back in time serves Nothing. Would have, Could have, Should have, accomplishes Nothing. What do we do Now? What's the Plan going Forward? Anybody?

Pull out? That's the good idea? It seems the only workable plan I ever hear, is what amounts to Bush's plan.

So ok, Bush lied. We have him jailed. Next step, get someone in charge to... finish Bush's plan...

[iaapac]

You're making my point. You're concentrating on Bush. For the sake of being on the same page, even though I disagree with it, I've given you that point, Bush lied. Ok, we'll convict him. Great. Say he's in Jail now.

Now what? Say Bush is Impeached already. What's the Plan?????

Is the plan to whine more about Bush?

I stated the plan in my last post.

[iaapac]

It isn't, but people won't let the "Bush" thing go and think to the future. All it is is whine whine whine whine, no plan. So, I'd like to hypothetically take him out of the picture. He's gone. Dead. What do we do about Iraq?

He didn't. It's an attempt at historical revisionism, just like Republicans get tagged with the "racist" tag when it's the Democrats that voted against eqality for Blacks, and have an ex-clansman as a Senator, and have Never appointed a Black person to high office. Just like it's Republicans that get tagged with "voter fruad" when the evidence is Overwhelming that it's Common practice in the Democratic party. If they repeat "Bush Lied" enough, with some psychobabble, the masses eat it up because they were primed to by the media.

But all of this is irrelivant. I'm giving up the truth for the sake of a solution. I'll assume Bush lied and we can have him thrown in jail.

Now what? What's the plan? Bush has a plan. What's Anybody elses?

Going back in time serves Nothing. Would have, Could have, Should have, accomplishes Nothing. What do we do Now? What's the Plan going Forward? Anybody?

Pull out? That's the good idea? It seems the only workable plan I ever hear, is what amounts to Bush's plan.

So ok, Bush lied. We have him jailed. Next step, get someone in charge to... finish Bush's plan...

[iaapac]

How about we permit the people of Iraq to vote in a referendum. They can continue with the establishment of a new government or have Saddam Hussein released from custody and continue as president of that nation.

If, however, they vote to establish a new government, they must be responsible for the election, to determine that it is fair, and to live with the consequences of that vote. The United States will not participate, influence or dictate any detail of that process.

Once the referendum has been completed, a complete withdrawal of the U.S. forces. This is not, incidentally, Bush's plan.

[Celumnaz]

they did have a referendum vote... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+referendum+vote

sounds very much like Bush's plan...

[iaapac]

they did have a referendum vote... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+referendum+vote

sounds very much like Bush's plan...

The referendum was a vote concerning the constitution and heavily tainted by U.S. influence. It did not resemble in any form the referendum I suggested.

The fact is that the U.S. is fighting a losing war in Iraq. The Bush administration has lost the battle for Iraqi hearts and minds; four out of five Iraqis hold a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and U.S. troops. With the expose of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, the U.S. lost whatever shred of moral authority it once claimed in Iraq, the Arab world, or the international community. And at home, President Bush is losing support faster than ever before; a majority of Americans believe the war was not worth the price, and 64% of Americans believe the president does not have a clear plan for Iraq.

Bush?s "five-step plan" to "help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom" is not new, does not lay out serious steps to resolve the Iraq crisis, and will not bring about anything resembling democracy or freedom. Instead, it is a recipe for an open-ended U.S. occupation, mounting deaths of both U.S. and coalition troops and Iraqis, and widening destruction in Iraq.

** Bush?s Step One: Hand over something

Whatever it is that the U.S. handed to the interim Iraqi government on June 30, it was certainly not sovereignty. Iraq will not be sovereign as long as 135,000 U.S. and tens of thousands of "coalition" troops remain in the country under U.S. command and unaccountable to the Iraqi government.

** Bush?s Step Two: Improve security

With or without a U.N. endorsement, the massive U.S. military deployment can never "help establish security" in Iraq; on the contrary, it is the largest cause of insecurity and violence, and the target of almost all of the opposition's violence.

** Bush?s Step Three: Rebuild the infrastructure

So far U.S. claims regarding its rebuilding efforts have been far more rhetorical than real. There is no indication this is likely to change, and the dominance of U.S.-selected private contractors to carry out the rebuilding guarantees that it will proceed at a far slower pace, and at a much higher cost, than if carried out by local Iraqi or regional Arab resources. Anti-occupation attacks makes repair more difficult, and new U.S. military offensives continue to further damage Iraqi infrastructure, as well as houses and holy sites.

** Bush?s Step Four: Internationalize the war

The Bush claim that it is seeking "more international support" is a sham. Washington's proposed new Security Council resolution is a blueprint for a bluewash - a U.N. endorsement of continuing U.S. occupation. The White House may be able to bribe and threaten enough countries to ensure a Council vote passing a resolution - but that doesn't translate into international legitimacy.

** Bush?s Step Five: Hold elections

The "national elections" did not have the power to approve or disapprove of U.S. military actions and offensives. According to U.S. officials, it will not have the power to overturn any of the economic privatization or security laws imposed by the U.S. proconsul in the last year, and will not have the power to draft or enforce any significant new legislation.

DO YOU WANT FIVE STEPS TO REAL SOVEREIGNTY AND PEACE

** The U.N. Security Council should refuse to endorse the U.S.-UK resolution designed to provide political cover for an illegal war, and the United Nations as a whole should refuse to participate in the U.S. occupation.

** The U.S. should end the occupation now, and bring the troops home.

** Once the U.S. ends its occupation, if representative sectors of Iraqi society invite it, the United Nations, backed by other international bodies such as the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, should stand ready to help Iraq establish mechanisms through which to choose their own leaders, reclaim sovereign control of their own country, and plan for reconstruction and development.

** The United States should pay for the reconstruction of and reparations to Iraq, in accordance with international law. Iraqis should decide the structure of their economy and control Iraq's reconstruction. All economic, oil, and security laws imposed by the U.S. occupation authority should be rescinded.

** Emptying the Abu Ghraib prison of inmates, and holding the highest-ranking U.S. military and civilian officials (not lowly privates and sergeants) accountable for the torture and mistreatment of prisoners, should be seen as the first steps in a major U.S. national campaign to reverse the political culture of racism and demonization of Iraqis, Palestinians, other Arabs, and Muslims--the culture that made the prison torture possible.

One point more . . . . there has been much talk about Iraq's use of chemical weapons and atrocities against the Iraqui people . . . .

* U.S. Broadcast Exclusive - "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre" on the U.S. Use

of Napalm-Like White Phosphorus Bombs *Democracy Now! airs an exclusive excerpt of "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre,"

featuring interviews with U.S. soldiers, Iraqi doctors and international

journalists on the U.S. attack on Fallujah. Produced by Italian state

broadcaster RAI TV, the documentary charges U.S. warplanes illegally dropped

white phosphorous incendiary bombs on civilian populations, burning the skin

off Iraqi victims. One U.S. soldier charges this amounts to the U.S. using

chemical weapons against the Iraqi people.

[gollo]

and don't forget the american forces also used napalm earlier in the war

[iaapac]

and don't forget the american forces also used napalm earlier in the war

You're quite right.

[xstortionist]

The U.S. is the last of the first world nations to use the death penalty. That is true. Of course we only execute a handful of people a year. Most of the inmates on death row live there for twenty years or better before getting thier just deserts.

True, we do have more people in prison than China. In China people often go missing.

I'm glad that you have the ability to see through all the hype that some people in other countries espouse. You know first hand that we are not perfect. We have our many short comings. That goes for our government and our people. If more people could see the U.S. through your eyes, they'd be more willing to help us instead of cursing us.

BTW, Got the P.M., Thanks. I'm looking into it.

Yea, and China also has public execution...which i feel we need in USA.

[Celumnaz]

What's your source for that iaapac?

I've found similar at:

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2414

http://www.tni.org/archives/bennis/points18.htm

ahhh... found it. http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=5044

Talking points? More of "I'll tell you what I think is wrong" and not enough "this is what we need to do Now"

Really wish you'd link your sources though.

Edited November 8, 2005 by Celumnaz

[iaapac]

What's your source for that iaapac?

I've found similar at:

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2414

http://www.tni.org/archives/bennis/points18.htm

ahhh... found it. http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=5044

Talking points? More of "I'll tell you what I think is wrong" and not enough "this is what we need to do Now"

Really wish you'd link your sources though.

Hey, I can barely turn on the hard drive!

[bathory]

The referendum was a vote concerning the constitution and heavily tainted by U.S. influence. It did not resemble in any form the referendum I suggested.

of course, therefore its invalid. Do you consider Japans constitution to be tainted? Do you consider Japan to be an undemocratic country with no sovereignty? You do realise the US was heavily involved in rebuilding Japan and maintains army bases in that country?

Whatever it is that the U.S. handed to the interim Iraqi government on June 30, it was certainly not sovereignty. Iraq will not be sovereign as long as 135,000 U.S. and tens of thousands of "coalition" troops remain in the country under U.S. command and unaccountable to the Iraqi government.

actually the US troops are there at the request of the Iraqi government, OOPS!

So far U.S. claims regarding its rebuilding efforts have been far more rhetorical than real. There is no indication this is likely to change, and the dominance of U.S.-selected private contractors to carry out the rebuilding guarantees that it will proceed at a far slower pace, and at a much higher cost, than if carried out by local Iraqi or regional Arab resources. Anti-occupation attacks makes repair more difficult, and new U.S. military offensives continue to further damage Iraqi infrastructure, as well as houses and holy sites.

how do you knowslocal and regional companies can do it faster? Companies like Haliburton have a proven track record of getting things done as fast as possible (go read up on the cleanup of the burning oil wells in kuwait during the gulf war)

The Bush claim that it is seeking "more international support" is a sham. Washington's proposed new Security Council resolution is a blueprint for a bluewash - a U.N. endorsement of continuing U.S. occupation. The White House may be able to bribe and threaten enough countries to ensure a Council vote passing a resolution - but that doesn't translate into international legitimacy.

welcome to what the UN is all about, please never ever complain about a country not seeking UN support and/or refusing to sign declarations with UN and what not. Bush is saying this for dimwits like John Kerry who love to say "I WOULD HAVE GOTTEN SUPPORT FROM THE UN, REGARDLESS OF THE HISTORICAL REALITY OF WHAT HAPPENED!"

The "national elections" did not have the power to approve or disapprove of U.S. military actions and offensives. According to U.S. officials, it will not have the power to overturn any of the economic privatization or security laws imposed by the U.S. proconsul in the last year, and will not have the power to draft or enforce any significant new legislation.

<.< the Constitution seems like a pretty significant new legislation...8 million people turned up to vote, thats pretty damn good considering the situation, of course, you would rather scream out something like "the Iraqis don't want a democracy" and the say 8 million isn't good enough, and that it should have been 8 million and 1.

The U.N. Security Council should refuse to endorse the U.S.-UK resolution designed to provide political cover for an illegal war, and the United Nations as a whole should refuse to participate in the U.S. occupation.

and in doing so fail to legitimise the new Iraqi government? thus leading to more attacks against the Iraqi people? as well as destroying any effort so far? you thought that one out well!

The U.S. should end the occupation now, and bring the troops home.

NO BLOOD FOR OIL, RA RA RA, another well thought out statement, would you like some Bush=hitler with that?

Once the U.S. ends its occupation, if representative sectors of Iraqi society invite it, the United Nations, backed by other international bodies such as the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, should stand ready to help Iraq establish mechanisms through which to choose their own leaders, reclaim sovereign control of their own country, and plan for reconstruction and development.

ohhh...so you want Islamist groups to wage a violent political campaign in order to take over Iraq? Here's a little reality check for you, US leaves Iraq, various small, well armed and violent extremist groups make a powerplay, the fledgling Iraqi government crumbles, there is a power vacuum, cue civil war and a new extremist government. BUT AT LEAST THEY ARE FREE FROM EVIL US OCCUPATION! the last thing anyone should want is the Arab League and the Islamic Conference involved...

The United States should pay for the reconstruction of and reparations to Iraq, in accordance with international law. Iraqis should decide the structure of their economy and control Iraq's reconstruction. All economic, oil, and security laws imposed by the U.S. occupation authority should be rescinded.

it seems to me you are screaming for everything to go back to stage one?

Emptying the Abu Ghraib prison of inmates, and holding the highest-ranking U.S. military and civilian officials (not lowly privates and sergeants) accountable for the torture and mistreatment of prisoners, should be seen as the first steps in a major U.S. national campaign to reverse the political culture of racism and demonization of Iraqis, Palestinians, other Arabs, and Muslims--the culture that made the prison torture possible.

1) first you have to prove that it was institutionalised

2) Stanford Prison experiment, go inform yourself on this little psychological experiment and don't give us this demonisation garbage...

i lol at the concept of political demonisation, because everyone knows the Arab world is the most tolerant loving culture anywhere, unless of course you are a woman...or gay...or a minority...or of a different faith...

as for the white phospherous claims

1) the mark 77 napalm weapons the US has (and were accused of using against entrenched enemy early in the war, which incidentally is perfectly legal), isn't made from white phospherous, its made from a gasoline and polystyrene gel. White Phospherous is however used in smoke grenades and flares...both of which i can imagine did get used allot in faluja...sounds like someone is being fairly lax with the truth.

*edit*

After a bit more research i've found that White Phosophorous does burn hot, and pieces of it are capable of having a similar effect of napalm, however, i'm yet to find any weaponised versions, only the smoke grenades, which are capable of burning people (though it should be noted, Phosphorous grenades aren't illegal), i'll update more if i find anything

Edited November 9, 2005 by bathory

[Lord Umbarger]

What, there was a war and some people died and some others got hurt? When did that start happening? Don't let the terrorists find out, they may start crashing planes into buildings and lighting fires all over France!

I hate to say it but, some people get hurt playing football where the whole idea is to have a safe game.

Just think, if saddam had done what he agreed to do in the ceace fire, none of this would have happened. He would have been free to kill them all himself.

[gollo]

as for the white phosphorous claims

1) the mark 77 napalm weapons the US has (and were accused of using against entrenched enemy early in the war, which incidentally is perfectly legal), isn't made from white phosphorous, its made from a gasoline and polystyrene gel. White phosphorous is however used in smoke grenades and flares...both of which i can imagine did get used allot in faluja...sounds like someone is being fairly lax with the truth.

*edit*

After a bit more research i've found that White Phosphorous does burn hot, and pieces of it are capable of having a similar effect of napalm, however, i'm yet to find any weaponised versions, only the smoke grenades, which are capable of burning people (though it should be noted, Phosphorous grenades aren't illegal), i'll update more if i find anything

Mark 77 napalm has nothing to do with phosphorous. It is Napalm. It is a flammable gel designed to spread over a large area and burn everything. While Napalm is technically legal, The U.S. is the only country in the UN not to sign up to a resolution banning it.

In 1980 the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, banned the use of incendiary bombs, (such as Mark 77 and White Phosphorus) against civilian populations, as by common consent it is an extremely inhumane type of weapon that does significant damage to the civilian. The U.S. did not sign up to this agreement. But most countries find that this action is morally objectionable.

[whoa182]

Not a waste of time... Look how people were being treated in iraq, it's not like we had any chance of asking saddam to to give up his position, or to say " please saddam stop ordering attacks on your own people"

Something had to be done and iraq was not going to sort itself out any time soon. There are plenty of good stories and I bet that most of the iraqi's are glad saddam is not in power, I also believe that iraq will be thanking the countries that helped them to democracy at some point in the future.

I dont really like bush, but I believe he did the right thing of going into iraq.

Edited November 9, 2005 by whoa182

[I am me]

I think we put out flyers to warn them to get out. But anyway, Bush murdered civilians. Ok, lets say he's found guilty and executed. Now...

WHAT'S YOUR PLAN?

Even if the military dropped the flyers, it still is ok to tell people "Hey, we are going to annihilate your property, better leave or you will die. Have a nice day."? Innocent people were going to die and the military doesn't care if they do as long as their objective is met.

What do you mean what is my plan? There should have been no plan in the first place to invade Iraq. The simple plan now is to bring all of our troops home from every location around the globe.

If I murder one man I get thrown in jail as a savage. If I lead an army to murder a hundred thousand they will build a statue of me and worship me in the history books.

Edited November 9, 2005 by I am me

[Celumnaz]

There should have been no plan in the first place to invade Iraq.

More should've, could've, would've... lets jump to present day reality.

The simple plan now is to bring all of our troops home from every location around the globe.

Ok, your plan is to pull out, Now. Thank you. I don't agree with that plan and think it's foolhardy, but hey... It's Something!

[iaapac]

Okay Celumnaz, what's your plan? And after that is enacted, what's the plan from there?

[PadawanOsswe]

if we pulled out now the country would collapse. This war on terror will last for decades like it or not. The spark was lit the second the Airliners crashed into the WTC, Pentagon,and in a peacefull field in Pennsylvania.

justice will be done.

Edited November 10, 2005 by PadawanOsswe

[iaapac]

if we pulled out now the country would collapse. This war on terror will last for decades like it or not. The spark was lit the second the Airliners crashed into the WTC, Pentagon,and in a peacefull field in Pennsylvania.

justice will be done.

Interesting viewpoint . . . . exactly how many Iraqui terrorists were on those planes?

[Stellar]

if we pulled out now the country would collapse. This war on terror will last for decades like it or not. The spark was lit the second the Airliners crashed into the WTC, Pentagon,and in a peacefull field in Pennsylvania.

justice will be done.

That's a shame. You'd think the spark would have been lit the minute there was a threat of terrorism to anyone.

[iaapac]

That's a shame. You'd think the spark would have been lit the minute there was a threat of terrorism to anyone.

I agree with your point but how do we link those attacks to Iraq?

[Stellar]

I agree with your point but how do we link those attacks to Iraq?

You dont.

[bathory]

Just more on the White Phosphorous debate, the documentary in question shows white phosphorous flares which aren't a big threat (could set a house on fire, but pretty much impossible to kill civilians en mass) being launched from planes (probably c-130s), the Documentary also referes to bodies where they appear to have been burned, yet the clothes are fine. For someone to have been burned to death by white phosphorous, you can pretty much gaurentee the clothes aren't going to be surviving, from more research it would appear that the majority of WP accidents involving people tend to be from clothes being ignited by the super hot cloud.

Yes it is possible WP grenades were used on insurgent positions as a "!@#$ you" (assuming troops are still equipped with them), but i don't see any practical application in either using them against the civilian population.

Also, from reading about the bodies, it is more likely they are a product of the wonderfully warm climate of the middle east. Not a pretty site.