 |
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Where's the joke? Israel is by far the most dangerous of all those states with a proven track record of attacking its neighbours and taking their territory. |
Well, I seem to recall that Tibet is marginally larger than the West Bank, Gazah and the Sinai combined.
Now, the world community, for reasons of its own, chose to accept the annexation of Tibet, but conquest is conquest.
And while it may not compare to Israel's sins, that little Sino-Vietnamese war stains the PRC's record, while, IIRC, the DPRK started the Korean War.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
 |
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Blistering attacks threaten Iraq election
Analysis
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
While the world's attention has been on the disaster in Asia, the situation in Iraq has deteriorated so much that the insurgency has developed into near-open warfare.
The killing of Baghdad's governor is another example of violence
The head of Iraq's intelligence service Gen Muhammad Shahwani now puts the number of insurgents at 200,000, of which 40,000 are said to be the hard core and the rest active supporters.
These figures do not represent an insurgency. They represent a war.
Questions therefore now have to be asked about what happens after the election on 30 January if the fighters, mainly Sunni Islamists and nationalists, continue their attacks.
If they do, they and the likely winners of the election, parties representing the majority Shia population, could come into conflict. This in turn could lead to a possible civil war.
Shia leaders have called for talks with Sunni representatives in the hope of averting such a scenario.
Nobody has as yet openly called for the withdrawal of US troops as the price of ending at least the nationalist part of the insurgency. But the idea could arise at some stage.
Matters post-30 January would be made worse if there was a low turnout in the Sunni areas because there would then be at best only a weak voice for a powerful section of Iraqi society and the one supporting the current fighting.
Calls for delay
A leading Sunni party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, is boycotting the vote. Elder statesman Adnan Pachachi has again called for a delay and a few more voices have been added to his chorus.
This does not mean that the vote will in fact be delayed. The Shias would not accept that. It does mean that people are worried about what happens afterwards.
Defence Minister Hazem Shaalan said he had asked Egypt to approach Sunni leaders and urge them to participate.
MOUNTING VIOLENCE
3 January 2005: More than 20 people killed in a day of violence across Iraq
2 January 2005: At least 23 Iraqi soldiers killed by a car bomb in Balad
27 December 2004: 13 die in a Baghdad car bomb targeting a top Shia political leader
21 December 2004: Suicide blast in a US military base in Mosul kills 22 people
19 December 2004: More than 60 die in twin suicide car attacks in Najaf and Karbala
"We want to give our Sunni brothers another chance even if this means delaying the vote," he said.
Iraq's UN ambassador Samir al-Sumaidaie had earlier proposed a delay of two or three weeks and suggested reserving some seats for the Sunnis for later selection, in an interview with the Washington Post.
The power of the insurgents was demonstrated again on Tuesday with the assassination of the governor of Baghdad Ali al-Haidri - the latest in a blistering series of attacks.
Many of these have targeted the Iraqi security forces which just do not have the ability to fight back effectively.
An example of this also came on Tuesday. A tanker loaded with explosives and driven by a suicide bomber - of whom there appears to be an unlimited supply - blew up at an Iraqi interior ministry commando headquarters in Baghdad, killing eight commandos and two civilians.
These commandos were formed as a special unit to target insurgents and to help make up for the ineffective regular police and national guard. Instead they are the target.
Loss of control
Until recently, the US military has talked of there being about 25,000 fighters in Iraq.
Gen Shahwani has not just upped the estimate, but has put it into the wider context of the active guerrilla support which perhaps gives a truer picture. There are 150,000 US troops.
Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington commented: "The Iraqi figures do... recognise the reality that the insurgency in Iraq has broad support in Sunni areas, while the US figures downplay this to the point of denial."
Mr Cordesman has for months pointed out the weakness of the local Iraq forces, saying recently that they were basically unprepared and "sent out to die."
The level of attacks is now so intense and sophisticated that it is not surprising that the former British representative to the former Coalition Authority, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said recently that the insurgency was "irremediable" and "ineradicable" by US and other foreign troops alone.
"It depends on the Iraqis. We have lost the primary control," he said.
Recent events indicate that Iraqis have lost the primary control as well. |
It doesn't look like it can still be "won".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:16
|
|
The attacks that are really hurting the coalition, the well executed assasinations, IED's, convoy ambushes, mortar and rocket attacks, are clearly the work of well trained military officers with sophistated command and control, which means they are answering to higher command elements and working to a plan. You can tell by the siting of attacks that they aren't just falafel munchers who happened to pick up an AK47.
The suicide bombers are just cannon fodder and big name terrorists are colour and movement. People like Al Zaquawi are not in charge. They screen the real brains. Probably ex Iraqi army - I think the worst mistake the coalition made was to purge the government and disband the Iraqi army. It left a lot of trained people with a grudge, no income and time on their hands.
Thats my take on it anyway from what I see from TV images.
It may be the coalition does not want to admit that community leaders are backing the fighting. I find it hard to believe their intelligence is so poor they don't know who they are fighting, but its possible. I would be staggered if the coalition doesn't have some clue who they are fighting. It suits the coalition for the public to think a rag bag bunch of evil "terrorists" are running the war.
Last edited by Alexander's Horse on 05-01-2005 at 08:09
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-01-2005 13:21
|