 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
Oh hell. Again with the stinking red savages?
They have it made.
They're spending the equivalent of the national deficit, adding on to their bingo halls. |
Still waiting for an explanation, Sloww.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
MtG -
The photos allegedly showed Iraqi armor across the border, and that was what Bush and his cronies told us and the Saudis (I presume). I remember that was the message we were told in the lead up to the war.
|
I think the operative term is/should be "across from" the border. Most of the SA-Kuwait and SA-Iraq border is unmarked or very casually marked at best, except the area right along the gulf and the couple of highways that go from Dhahran to Kuwait City on the coast, and KKMC to Kuwait City via al Batin. The Saudis had photo-recon capability inside their own airspace, and SANG (Saudi Arabia National Guard) units on OP along a lateral front to either side of each highway. What the OP's couldn't see was the force strength and composition behind the Iraqi units recon screen.
Tanks in the desert look like tanks in the desert from aerial or reconsat photos, so it's not like you could really doctor them in any meaningful way - Iraqis holding up signs saying "Hi, we're here in Sunny Saudi Arabia, wish you were here" wouldn't quite cut it - and without reference to some obvious landmark, you couldn't "prove" the location on either side of the border. The Saudis weren't so dumb they wouldn't know that, as a lot of them are US trained, and they had SANG units already in place on the ground. Nothing more than speed bumps, but they'd sure as hell know (and be obligated by the royal's ego to respond) about any incursion into Saudi territory.
quote:
Maybe we're talking about different photos, I believe it was a Ft Lauderdale paper that exposed at least some of the photos had been doctored to show Iraqis in SA. Perhaps I heard the story wrong, but I'm very sure of this.
|
What we did do, which was at least partly deceptive, is not prioritize telling the Saudis that the IRG had pulled back and that the line was being filled with replacement units who were digging in.
quote:
I don't hold her accountable, she's just a bureaucrat who I assume was following orders. But when "Hitler revisited" is massing troops on a neighbor's border ~immediately after another war had ended, telling Saddam we won't get involved in his dispute with the Kuwaitis and that we have no treaty with them is, in my book, a green light.
|
If Saddam had discussed invasion, then yes. But if Saddam was just doing Saddamesque saber rattling (and it was over a year after the last war, which the Iranians had coming to them) while Arab diplomats were planning on mediating the issue at an Arab League meeting and everyone appeared to be on that page for dealing with the issue, then it's a lot less clear. At any rate, it would be assinine for the US to insist unilaterally that we'd defend Kuwait when no invasion was threatened and when we had no treaty relations with any party that would even give us basing rights to do so.
quote:
Baker said he asked the Russians if they were going to pull on Saddam's leash and I have to ask why we didn't when we had the chance. |
We didn't have the chance. Remember, this was after "Iraqgate" and the leadup to what would become the BNL trial in Atlanta, so the US wasn't providing any more off-books funding (the war was over), and well after the Iran-Contra thing had broken so that the Iraqis knew we'd been double-dealing with the Iranians during the war courtesy of Reagan, Poindexter and Ollie North fun and games. Our credibility with and leverage over the Iraqis, to the extent we'd gained either during the Reagan administration, was pretty much shot by 1990.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Countries that annex Austria don't seem to have good runs at world conquest. |
Countries? Oh come on, we've only been annexed once.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Russia...Poland...France....Ottoman Empire...Even China"
I'd love to hear the details of those amazing stories.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Ah, that would be an explanation. At least I hope we got diplo-annexed, anything else is so ungemütlich.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
Haven't read the thread, except for a bit of the first page. But today I came across an article I found interesting. Since this is the "Iraq thread" on page 1, here it is:
quote:
Ready for the truth? Iraq is getting better
Half a century ago, in a blistering denunciation of the Korean War, the British war correspondent Reginald Thompson wrote: “It was clear that there was something profoundly disturbing about this campaign and something profoundly disturbing about its commander in chief.”
Thompson’s words could equally well apply to the US-led campaign in Iraq a campaign marked by overblown claims, disingenuous climbdowns and an embarrassing absence of weapons of mass destruction. They could also refer to its commander in chief, US President George W. Bush, the head of a cabal that seeks to install a client regime in Iraq as a first step to extending American-Israeli control across the region. Disturbing, indeed.
But there is something disturbing, too, about the way opponents of the war have portrayed events in Iraq. Visceral distrust of Bush and his sidekick, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has brought with it a disregard both for facts and for the victims of the Iraqi tyrant, Saddam Hussein. Arab commentators have had no shame in urging their Iraqi brothers, exhausted by three major wars and more than a decade of sanctions, to start a new war “of liberation” against their liberators. Western commentators critical of the war have luxuriated in the failures of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) failures that condemn Iraqis to protracted hardship.
Disaster has been prophesied, self-servingly, at every turn: The war would be protracted (it wasn’t, and most Iraqis had no direct experience of it); tens of thousands would die in the battle for Baghdad (they didn’t); and now, in the words of a British Arabist, “even the most optimistic and moderate Iraqis fear the very real prospect of civil war.”
Not those I know. Not yet. Nor those polled in August by the American research company Zogby International, which found that 70 percent of Iraqis believe their country will be better not worse in five years’ time.
The voice of Iraqis who supported war over continued tyranny has been hushed from the very beginning. Organizers of the great anti-war demonstrations in Britain confiscated banners saying “Freedom for Iraq” and seized photographs of the victims of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam’s army gassed 5,000 civilians. No space was given to people like Freshta Raper, who lost 21 relatives in Halabja and wanted to ask: “How many protestors have asked an Iraqi mother how she felt when she was forced to watch her son being executed? How many know that these mothers had to applaud as their sons died or be executed themselves? What is more moral? Freeing an oppressed, brutalized people from a vicious tyrant or allowing millions to continue suffering indefinitely?”
In mid-summer, I spent over a month in Iraq. What I found there did not correspond to what was being reported most crucially, that the liberators were widely perceived as occupiers. That simply wasn’t true. In Baghdad, where US forces had permitted widespread looting (although not as much as reported) and where security and services were virtually nonexistent, attitudes toward the Americans were mixed. But even in Baghdad, even with Saddam and his sons still lurking in the shadows, the sense of relief at the toppling of the regime was palpable.
A university lecturer showed me the bakery below her apartment where educators who fell foul of the ousted dictator were burned alive and said: “We could smell it. Iraq was a prison above ground and a mass grave beneath it. I feel as if I have been born again.” Outside Baghdad, in the Shiite south, the mood was overwhelmingly upbeat. In Basra, ordinary people gave the thumbs-up at the mere sight of a Briton. In Najaf, a waiter blew kisses (from behind the backs of visiting Iranian mullahs). In Amara, streets were buzzing well after midnight.
Today, the line being peddled is that there is growing popular support for a war of resistance against the CPA and Iraqis working with it. It is said that Iraq is a security-free zone threatened with “Lebanonization.” Bad news sells; good news doesn’t. But there is still, if only just, good news in Iraq: Unemployment remains a huge problem, but despite the slow reconstruction effort more people have jobs and some salaries have risen, particularly for qualified people seeking work in the private sector. Shops are overflowing with imported goods; food prices are lower than they were during Saddam’s last years. Approximately 85 percent of primary and secondary schools have reopened. Some 55,000 Iraqis have enrolled in law-enforcement services and an increasing number of Iraqi policemen are on the streets, directing traffic, guarding buildings and occasionally enforcing the law.
Many Iraqis welcomed with enthusiasm the Cabinet appointed earlier this month by the Governing Council. “These are people who have been to Harvard, Oxford and MIT … educated people,” said an Iraqi opponent of the war on a visit to Beirut. “Some of Saddam Husseins’s ministers hadn’t got beyond primary school.” At the neighborhood level, the nine District Councils of Baghdad that form the City Council meet regularly and appear to be working harmoniously. “To the credit of the CPA civilians who work with the City Council, the degree of transparency and cooperation in the work of the council is impressive,” says Rend Rahim Francke of the Iraq Foundation, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) working for democracy and human rights.
Outside Baghdad, despite the explosion that killed Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim last month, there is greater security than in the capital, crime is lower and services, including electricity, are more available. All Iraqi cities and 85 percent of its smaller towns have fully functioning municipalities. “Self-government, long advocated for Iraq, appears to be working well when put into practice,” says Francke.
It is worth stating the obvious, so momentous is it: For the first time in almost half a century, Iraq has no executions, no political prisoners, no torture and no limits on freedom of expression. Having a satellite dish no longer means going to jail or being executed. There are over 167 newspapers and magazines that need no police permit and suffer no censorship, over 70 political parties and dozens of NGOs. Old professional associations have held elections and new associations have sprung up. People can demonstrate freely and do.
The occupying forces got off to a wretched start. The first US proconsul, retired General Jay Garner, was an unmitigated disaster, stepping jovially through Iraq’s ruins, old and new, like a child in an adventure playground. His successor, Paul Bremer, began badly, disbanding the Iraqi Army and making immediate enemies of half a million serving and retired officers and NCOs. He has yet to announce a timetable for restoring sovereignty to the Iraqi people. However, he has accepted the need for greater reliance on Iraqis albeit in a slow and incremental manner that will not control the escalating violence and has set about transforming a bankrupt economy burdened with a Stalinist industrial structure and three decades of mismanagement.
The concern now is that the Iraqis who stand to benefit from American contracts are a handful of war profiteers nearly all of them Sunnis whose capital came from cooperating with the old regime. Former business associates of Saddam’s late, unlamented son Odai have already won big reconstruction contracts. Iraqis know who these people are. The Iraqi National Congress had been working on de-Baathification of the economy since before the former dictator disappeared, and is still doing so. Bremer should worry less about Al-Qaeda and more about bankrolling those who, for as long as Saddam remains alive, will be hedging their bets on the future.
Julie Flint is a veteran journalist based in Beirut and London. She wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR
|
Now, I don't know anything about Ms. Flint & her politics, but frankly this sounds a lot more fair and balanced than any other article I've seen about Iraq thus far. Given that, the picture painted isn't glowing, but neither is it hellish.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Didn't Spain rule over Austria too, as part of the Hasburg Empire?? |
Not really. They were, for a time, united under one crown, Karl V/Carlos I, King of Spain, ArchDuke of Austria, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, etc., etc. Spain didn't run Austria, Karl ran both (though he ran his empire from Madrid and had his brother run Austria for him). When he died he gave Austria to his brother and his son got the Spanish Empire.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-09-2003 21:28
You've been annexed more than once my friend.
|