General discussions : Non mobile discussion : Breaking News - More Explosions in London Tube Stations
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> Breaking News - More Explosions in London Tube Stations
Bookmark topic
U.S. study: Insurgents infiltrate Iraq police
Report suggests turning over recruiting to Iraq government
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/W[....]t/07/25/iraq.police/index.html
Tuesday, July 26, 2005 Posted: 0310 GMT (1110 HKT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Insurgents and other criminals have infiltrated Iraqi police ranks due to poor screening procedures by U.S. forces, according to a joint report released Monday by the U.S. Defense Department and State Department.
--
Posted: 2005-07-26 11:14:36
Edit :
Quote
Quote:I guess I'll accept the UN and International communities view on it.
both of whom have been wrong before, and neither of whom are unanimous in their decisions. i'm not going to argue about this because at this point in time there is no correct answer to that particular conflict.
Quote:Pot, kettle.
not a good way to help me understand your point of view, and what's more grossly inaccurate. please show me in this thread where i
deliberately misrepresented your opinion. AFAIK i have made every attempt to be respectful of others opinions even when i vehemently disagree with them. nor have i made any personal attacks.
Quote:So perhaps they are merely criminally neglegent?
doubtful, but maybe (on case by case basis)......
Quote:The war and occupation were and are illegal. The objective is irrelevant (the fact the objctive was illegal merely increases the criminality of the venture).
actually, i think you'll find it may have been technically legal by the terms of the UN resolutions at the end of the previous gulf war, depending on whether their belief in WMD or other contravention of those resolutions was genuine. although, as i've said before, if anyone can tell me of a genuinely "legal" war i'd love to know.
Quote:No, you don't understand. So why DO they do it?
i'd be interested in your theories.
Quote:Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. That's quite a prize.
only if they cost less to attain than they are actually worth (and even then the difference needs to be significant).
Quote:A situation caused entirely by the illegal occupation.
it also takes a while to build up and train a military force. i think they're getting there though. for the record, other situations caused by the "illegal occupation" include:
the formation of an iraqi olympic and other sporting teams free of torture and rape
a free iraqi media
unfettered iraqi internet access for the general population
a genuine iraqi government moving towards democracy
also, since the officially recognised government of iraq have requested coalition forces to stay the occupation is probably no longer illegal (assuming it was to begin with).
Quote:For sure. Those would be the insurgents who were wholly absent from Iraq before the illegal invasion? We (the coalition) bear full responsibilty for creating the pre-conditions of civil war in Iraq.
true, but nobody forced them across the border either. they could have stayed at home rather than taking advantage of an already struggling country. also there's no proof that they were "wholly absent" (you can't prove a negative), although i will accept that it's harder for insurgents to exist in a dictatorship without the support of that dictatorship.
Quote:Phew. That makes it okay then.
again trying to twist my words. of course it's not ok. it's never ok. it's just not always avoidable in certain circumstances.
ok, well i'm tired and i'm going to bed
EDIT: that's an interesting (if not entirely unsurprising) article.
_________________
Whomsoever you see in distress, recognize in him a fellow man
My new house photos[ This Message was edited by: gelfen on 2005-07-26 10:33 ]
--
Posted: 2005-07-26 11:27:37
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 11:27:37, gelfen wrote:
Quote:I guess I'll accept the UN and International communities view on it.
both of whom have been wrong before, and neither of whom are unanimous in their decisions. i'm not going to argue about this because at this point in time there is no correct answer to that particular conflict.
Well, the UN seems to think there's a correct answer. But I'm glad you accept people are sometimes wrong. And for you information Security Council Resolution 242 (the one that "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisistion of territory by war..." and "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces form territories occupied in the recent conflict") was unanimously passed. (UN record of resolution
here)
Quote:
Quote:Pot, kettle.
not a good way to help me understand your point of view, and what's more grossly inaccurate. please show me in this thread where i
deliberately misrepresented your opinion. AFAIK i have made every attempt to be respectful of others opinions even when i vehemently disagree with them. nor have i made any personal attacks.
I apologise if I have been disrespectful. I'm exasperated. Not and excuse, so sorry again.
Quote:
Quote:So perhaps they are merely criminally neglegent?
doubtful, but maybe (on case by case basis)......
Why do you find it *so* difficult to accept that the coalition might have sinister motives?
Quote:
Quote:The war and occupation were and are illegal. The objective is irrelevant (the fact the objctive was illegal merely increases the criminality of the venture).
actually, i think you'll find it may have been technically legal by the terms of the UN resolutions at the end of the previous gulf war, depending on whether their belief in WMD or other contravention of those resolutions was genuine. although, as i've said before, if anyone can tell me of a genuinely "legal" war i'd love to know.
The Secretary General has given his opinion. The first Iraq war was legal. The British/French response to Hitler's invasion of Poland was legal.
Quote:
Quote:No, you don't understand. So why DO they do it?
i'd be interested in your theories.
I have no idea; it totally perplexes me.
Quote:
Quote:Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. That's quite a prize.
only if they cost less to attain than they are actually worth (and even then the difference needs to be significant).
I think from Bush's refusal to even consider lowering carbon emmissions or accepting Kyoto, no price is too high for oil.
Quote:
Quote:A situation caused entirely by the illegal occupation.
it also takes a while to build up and train a military force. i think they're getting there though. for the record, other situations caused by the "illegal occupation" include:
See my CNN post.
Quote:
the formation of an iraqi olympic and other sporting teams free of torture and rape
You think that's worth 100,000 deaths?
Quote:
a free iraqi media
It's certainly better than it was.
Quote:
unfettered iraqi internet access for the general population
Unfettered? You mean when people actually have electricity?
Quote:
a genuine iraqi government moving towards democracy
A US imposed pupet regime. Remember, the US decided who could stand as candidates in the so-called "democratic" elections.
Quote:
also, since the officially recognised government of iraq have requested coalition forces to stay the occupation is probably no longer illegal (assuming it was to begin with).
It's all a bit after the fact. And it's merely an "interim" government.
Quote:
Quote:For sure. Those would be the insurgents who were wholly absent from Iraq before the illegal invasion? We (the coalition) bear full responsibilty for creating the pre-conditions of civil war in Iraq.
true, but nobody forced them across the border either. they could have stayed at home rather than taking advantage of an already struggling country. also there's no proof that they were "wholly absent" (you can't prove a negative), although i will accept that it's harder for insurgents to exist in a dictatorship without the support of that dictatorship.
Before the war, according to the CIA, Iraq "exported no terrorist threat" and "was "implacably hostile to al-Qaeda". I'm working in securing a full copy of the report I've quoted from
here.
Quote:
Quote:Phew. That makes it okay then.
again trying to twist my words. of course it's not ok. it's never ok. it's just not always avoidable in certain circumstances.
Perhaps the London bombers merely set out to disable the Capital's transport network and to cause economic damage. Perhaps the loss of 56 lives was purely colateral? Does the thought that the deaths were not deliberate change your view of the bombings?
Quote:
ok, well i'm tired and i'm going to bed
Sleep well.
Quote:
EDIT: that's an interesting (if not entirely unsurprising) article.
I thought so.
[edit] I've just read this article in today's
New York Times. It seems that the US is keen for its form of democracy to be imposed in Iraq; the local form envisaged by the Iraqi committee that's drafting the new constitution is not, apparently, acceptable.
_________________
We are not afraid.
[ This Message was edited by: absinthebri on 2005-07-26 12:13 ]
[ This Message was edited by: absinthebri on 2005-07-26 12:30 ]
--
Posted: 2005-07-26 13:08:46
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-07-26 13:08:46, absinthebri wrote:
I apologise if I have been disrespectful. I'm exasperated. Not and excuse, so sorry again.
no apology necessary
i just didn't understand why you seemed to be accusing me of either misrepresenting your opinion or being deliberately provovative. i'm sorry if what i said offended you but i honestly thought that's what you were trying to do - and if i'm mistaken i apologise.
Quote:Why do you find it *so* difficult to accept that the coalition might have sinister motives?
actually i don't find that hard to accept at all. what i find hard to accept are the accusations many people make that their motives are entirely malevolent. i'm not stupid enough to think that they are entirely altruistic either. i have no doubt that the US forces would have stayed home if their was not some perceivable benefit to US down the track, but equally i don't believe they would even have attempted to move on iraq if it was completely unjustified. to take one example, the fact that no WMD or biological have yet been found (excluding the sarin bomb that went off in baghdad a few months into the occupation) is not evidence of a sinister plot on the part of the US government. it only proves one of two things - either that nobody has looked in the right places, or that the intelligence was wrong. it doesn't prove any sort of falsehood, but that somebody somewhere made a mistake. whether that mistake was thinking there were WMD when there weren't, or telling pork-pies and getting caught is yet to be determined.
Quote:The Secretary General has given his opinion. The first Iraq war was legal. The British/French response to Hitler's invasion of Poland was legal.
i personally don't think any war is "legal" in the usual sense - just that some are deemed more acceptable than others, and that they are too big to be considered a normal "crime".
btw - i have grave doubts about the UN's ability to find it's backside with both hands since it almost never takes any action which is contrary to the interests of the various council members. the track record in human rights of the various security council member nations is appalling, and the silence is deafening when it comes to non-US related issues such as zimbabwe.
Quote:I have no idea; it totally perplexes me.
i actually think they are still there because it turned out to be a lot harder than anyone anticipated. in the beginning they probably thought they could move in, oust the current regime, install a pseudo-democratic friendly government, sign a few oil contracts, then get out within 12 to 16 months. because there has been so much violence with respect to the various insurgent groups, as well as the resurfacing shia-sunni tensions, the coalition forces have been caught in a situation they really didn't want to be in.
Quote:I think from Bush's refusal to even consider lowering carbon emmissions or accepting Kyoto, no price is too high for oil.
i'm not entirely convinced that kyoto is really going to do anything anyway. the main factor for oil prices will be increasing demand vs. depleting reserves.
Quote:
You think that's worth 100,000 deaths?
...
It's certainly better than it was.
...
Unfettered? You mean when people actually have electricity?
...
A US imposed pupet regime. Remember, the US decided who could stand as candidates in the so-called "democratic" elections.
...
It's all a bit after the fact. And it's merely an "interim" government.
i lumped these together to shorten the post length. i was only trying to point out that there are also a number of positives to come out of the iraq situation, and that the basic freedoms you and i take for granted are slowly being returned to the iraqi people. btw - there are various non-governmental websites now run by various iraqi citizens.
i could throw up a bit of a cop-out and say "what price freedom?", but that's not very helpful. suffice to say that the path to a free iraq is a long and difficult one (and the road to hell is paved with good intentions
).
Quote:Perhaps the London bombers merely set out to disable the Capital's transport network and to cause economic damage. Perhaps the loss of 56 lives was purely colateral? Does the thought that the deaths were not deliberate change your view of the bombings?
not really, because the target was still deliberately chosen to be at a time when a large civillian population was in the firing line. if it had been at 3am on a tuesday i could possibly accept that explanation, but not during the day.
Quote:[edit] I've just read this article in today's
New York Times. It seems that the US is keen for its form of democracy to be imposed in Iraq; the local form envisaged by the Iraqi committee that's drafting the new constitution is not, apparently, acceptable.
unfortunately i can't read that article because i'm not a ny times member. however, i did a bit of searching based on your comments. you may be interested to read this
Times Online article which outlines some of the problems with the current draft constitution wrt to unequal treatment of women.
i also found a couple of other articles of interest. firstly this
LA Times article relating to the opinion of the US in muslim nations. it picks up on some of the themes in this article from the
Lebanon Daily Star
There is
another Daily Star article here, which puts forward some very interesting arguments relating to iraq and the middle east if you ignore some of the predictable anti-US rhetoric.
_________________
Whomsoever you see in distress, recognize in him a fellow man
My new house photos[ This Message was edited by: gelfen on 2005-07-27 11:49 ]
--
Posted: 2005-07-27 12:36:10
Edit :
Quote
I shall study those articles in depth later; thanks for the links. The Times one is saying much what the NYT link I posted does.
But...
Afghans riot over U.S. arrests
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/W[....]fghanistan.riots.ap/index.html
Wednesday, July 27, 2005 Posted: 0040 GMT (0840 HKT)
BAGRAM, Afghanistan (AP) -- Hundreds of protesters chanting "Die America!" and throwing stones tried to batter down a gate at the U.S. military's main Afghan base, adding to anxieties in a country worried that fighting with insurgents could disrupt elections.
--
Posted: 2005-07-27 14:36:14
Edit :
Quote
I tottally agree American foreign policy is not in the best interest of the rest of the world but think what would have happen if Saudi Arabia was the world's richest and most powerful country? Then we will understand that actually American is not such an evil country as its portraid
--
Posted: 2005-07-27 22:47:20
Edit :
Quote
I am so glad they got hold of those filthy, rotten, cowardly, scumbags. I hope they rot in hell, for ever. Big thanks to the police and security forces.
This message was posted from a T610
--
Posted: 2005-07-30 13:09:21
Edit :
Quote
They havnt been found guilty yet.
--
Posted: 2005-07-30 20:09:55
Edit :
Quote
"think what would have happen if Saudi Arabia was the world's richest and most powerful country?"
What do you think would be bad about that?
--
Posted: 2005-08-03 11:30:00
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-07-30 20:09:55, thelight wrote:
They havnt been found guilty yet.
Whats there to be found saying there not guilty! Of course their guilty. What are you saying they were innocent victims who just happened to try and blow people up?
And now one of them is saying it was only flour… so f’ing what, he used terrorist tactics to terrorise the uk. If they hate the uk and our way of life why don’t they f off to a country that is more to there way of life!
_________________
T68m(i)-->T610-->k700i-->P800
+ Moto RAZOR V3 (black)
my ebay items
KEEP IT
spurious
[ This Message was edited by: joebmc on 2005-08-04 17:48 ]
[ This Message was edited by: joebmc on 2005-08-04 17:48 ]
--
Posted: 2005-08-04 18:42:42
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
