Full Version: US + UN?
Given the rising opposition of the Iraqi people to the presence of US troops in Iraq, and given the problems of replacing its ground forces that the US army appears to be facing, should the USA not now reconsider allowing the UN to move peace keeper troops into Iraq?
If not, then why not?
I seem to recall that in the famous US Somalia incident, it was a Pakistani UN force which came to rescue the beleaguered US forces demonstrating that the UN is not the enemy, and here in Denmark, we have a long tradition of success both with UN peace keeping roles and NATO roles. I see no reason why the US cannot work along side the UN.
Surely it would be prudent now, to create a UN buffer between the US troops on the ground (I don't advocate they leave) and the Iraqi people? Its the direct stupidty of arrogant pride to not take advantage of such a resource at a time like this.
Advisors report; US has closing window of opportunity; http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-rebuild18jul1...0,4446854.story
US struggling to find replacement troops; http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisob...ics/6335469.htm
Pentagon retaliates against complaining GI's; http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...18/MN248299.DTL
Landstuhl base hospital filled with US casualties; http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...4&article=16589
If not, then why not?
I seem to recall that in the famous US Somalia incident, it was a Pakistani UN force which came to rescue the beleaguered US forces demonstrating that the UN is not the enemy, and here in Denmark, we have a long tradition of success both with UN peace keeping roles and NATO roles. I see no reason why the US cannot work along side the UN.
Surely it would be prudent now, to create a UN buffer between the US troops on the ground (I don't advocate they leave) and the Iraqi people? Its the direct stupidty of arrogant pride to not take advantage of such a resource at a time like this.
Advisors report; US has closing window of opportunity; http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-rebuild18jul1...0,4446854.story
US struggling to find replacement troops; http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisob...ics/6335469.htm
Pentagon retaliates against complaining GI's; http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...18/MN248299.DTL
Landstuhl base hospital filled with US casualties; http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...4&article=16589
Of course we should allow the UN to move peace-kepping forces into Iraq. Any military action in Iraq (if there needed to be any military action in Iraq) should have been in conjunction with the UN in the first place - this invasion was after all prompted by violations of UN resolutions - at least ostensibly.
Will we allow such peace-keepers to salvage the quagmire? Unlikely - at least until things become even more desperate. Why? Well, you seem to have nailed it, moif: "the direct stupidity of arrogant pride". Something like that should be the motto of the Bush administration: Arrogance, Pride, Stupidity. Of course, we'd have to work in Greed there somewhere, as well.
Will we allow such peace-keepers to salvage the quagmire? Unlikely - at least until things become even more desperate. Why? Well, you seem to have nailed it, moif: "the direct stupidity of arrogant pride". Something like that should be the motto of the Bush administration: Arrogance, Pride, Stupidity. Of course, we'd have to work in Greed there somewhere, as well.
Yes, resoundingly yes. The sooner we get away from this destructive dog and pony show, the better off all parties will be. Send the Danes in, God bless 'em, and anybody else who is interested in bringing lasting peace and order to Iraq. Why should the US and Britain bear the brunt? Sole bragging rights are too costly.
Let the UN do its job.
Let the UN do its job.
QUOTE(moif @ Jul 19 2003, 06:23 AM)
Given the rising opposition of the Iraqi people to the presence of US troops in Iraq, and given the problems of replacing its ground forces that the US army appears to be facing, should the USA not now reconsider allowing the UN to move peace keeper troops into Iraq?
If not, then why not?
I seem to recall that in the famous US Somalia incident, it was a Pakistani UN force which came to rescue the beleaguered US forces demonstrating that the UN is not the enemy, and here in Denmark, we have a long tradition of success both with UN peace keeping roles and NATO roles. I see no reason why the US cannot work along side the UN.
Surely it would be prudent now, to create a UN buffer between the US troops on the ground (I don't advocate they leave) and the Iraqi people? Its the direct stupidty of arrogant pride to not take advantage of such a resource at a time like this.
If not, then why not?
I seem to recall that in the famous US Somalia incident, it was a Pakistani UN force which came to rescue the beleaguered US forces demonstrating that the UN is not the enemy, and here in Denmark, we have a long tradition of success both with UN peace keeping roles and NATO roles. I see no reason why the US cannot work along side the UN.
Surely it would be prudent now, to create a UN buffer between the US troops on the ground (I don't advocate they leave) and the Iraqi people? Its the direct stupidty of arrogant pride to not take advantage of such a resource at a time like this.
You beat me Moif. I was just about to create a topic like this
Some men would rather die than admit that they need help but i think Bush needs to consider asking the UN to come on in and join the party.
US going for mandate for UN to join Iraq peacekeeping role
QUOTE
The US State Department meanwhile announced preliminary talks were underway on a new UN mandate on troop deployment.
Such a mandate may include amendments to or replacements for UN Security Council Resolution 1483, which encourages states to cooperate in Iraqi peacekeeping. "We`re open to the prospect and we are talking about it with other people," spokesman Richard Boucher said.
Boucher noted that several countries -- including France, Germany, India, Pakistan and Russia -- have said they would not contribute troops to the mission without a specific UN mandate.
Washington has grown increasingly frustrated at difficulties in securing contributions to the stabilization force, as its own troops endure deadly attacks almost daily from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) loyalists.
Such a mandate may include amendments to or replacements for UN Security Council Resolution 1483, which encourages states to cooperate in Iraqi peacekeeping. "We`re open to the prospect and we are talking about it with other people," spokesman Richard Boucher said.
Boucher noted that several countries -- including France, Germany, India, Pakistan and Russia -- have said they would not contribute troops to the mission without a specific UN mandate.
Washington has grown increasingly frustrated at difficulties in securing contributions to the stabilization force, as its own troops endure deadly attacks almost daily from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) loyalists.
GA
Thanks for the link.
Paladin Elspeth
There are already Danish soldiers erving in Iraq.
Thanks for the link.
Paladin Elspeth
There are already Danish soldiers erving in Iraq.
I recently heard a liberal pundit rush to undermine some good news about Saddam's regime by clinging to conditions in post-war Iraq. He pointed out that in Kosovo, the US contributed around 10% of the forces, but in Iraq, its more like 90%, and that we are the only ones taking casualties. He claimed that we need put more troops on the ground, and that more of those troops need to come from our allies. I think the reason our allies were willing to help with Kosovo, but not with Saddam(who had committed far more genocide), is partly that Milosevic was in Europe’s back yard, and partially that France, Germany and Russia had such extensive financial ties to Iraq. Its not that we haven’t welcomed the allies to take a role in Iraq’s reconstruction, we have. I also think that sending more ground troops would merely give the enemy more targets until we find and eliminate the people funding them. And introducing Saddam’s sons to the gates of hell was a great start.
QUOTE(moif @ Jul 19 2003, 11:23 AM)
Given the rising opposition of the Iraqi people to the presence of US troops in Iraq, and given the problems of replacing its ground forces that the US army appears to be facing, should the USA not now reconsider allowing the UN to move peace keeper troops into Iraq?
Actually, we need to get our own troops *OUT* of Iraq. If military action was going to be taken, it needed to be under the UN flag, not our own. But then again, the US has a reputation for running around, bullying smaller nations (not that we'd ever attack anyone who could stand up to us or anything) and imposing our will on people who want nothing to do with us.
QUOTE(Cephus @ Jul 22 2003, 09:55 PM)
Actually, we need to get our own troops *OUT* of Iraq. If military action was going to be taken, it needed to be under the UN flag, not our own.
Well, we'd be fighting with the help of the UN if 3 certain countries in the UN Security Council wasn't in bed with Saddam with a bunch of oil contracts.
GoAmerica
Thats rich considering the amount of oil people in top positions in the US government today...
Thats rich considering the amount of oil people in top positions in the US government today...
I wonder why the countries that comprise the UN would want to help us now at all, considering all the abuse that was heaped upon them pre-war. Now though, IMO, if they are willing, give them a piece of the humblepie, we certainly need the help.
I think it is not a question of should we let the UN help in iraq (of course we SHOULD) but can we find enough troops from countries that don't disagree with this war. it is stupid to try getting french, german, russian or chinese as they were all opposed to the war in the first place and it is idiotic to think that after all we said to them they would contribute. we made this mess ourselves.
it should be noted that there are only 1000 or so troops from countries other then britain and america.
so should we allow the UN to help us? sure. anyone that wants to send combat troops to Iraq should feel free to do so. but can we get them to help? IMO no, and understandably so.
it should be noted that there are only 1000 or so troops from countries other then britain and america.
so should we allow the UN to help us? sure. anyone that wants to send combat troops to Iraq should feel free to do so. but can we get them to help? IMO no, and understandably so.
QUOTE(Artemise @ Jul 23 2003, 03:34 AM)
I wonder why the countries that comprise the UN would want to help us now at all, considering all the abuse that was heaped upon them pre-war. Now though, IMO, if they are willing, give them a piece of the humblepie, we certainly need the help.
I'm sure the countries would love to do gloating and then will help us after taking their sweet time deciding, making Washington sweat
Help us for what? To get some of their own killed? Why?
QUOTE(Artemise @ Jul 23 2003, 09:03 AM)
Help us for what? To get some of their own killed? Why?
To help stabalize Iraq maybe
Ack. Can we debate with something more than one-liners, please? 
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jul 23 2003, 03:52 AM)
QUOTE(Cephus @ Jul 22 2003, 09:55 PM)
Actually, we need to get our own troops *OUT* of Iraq. If military action was going to be taken, it needed to be under the UN flag, not our own.
Well, we'd be fighting with the help of the UN if 3 certain countries in the UN Security Council wasn't in bed with Saddam with a bunch of oil contracts.
As opposed to Bush, who was handing out oil contracts to US companies before we ever went to Iraq?
I think a major role played by the UN would be very helpful. This is the type of thing it can excel at (as opposed to war).
Imagine you are an aspiring and even good-hearted Iraqi leader. Where do you go right now. Is working with the American forces a good idea or would it taint you as a collaborator? An independent voice in the light of day? (i.e. a city mayor who is openly critical of some US policies.
Or is it more authentic to participate in a resistance movement against an occupying army?
The United States conquered Iraq, that will always rub nationalists the wrong way even if they have no great animosity toward that country before the occupation. We are an occupying power in the Arab world and we are using the language of imperialism in a region that long was controlled by outside forces (Ottoman Empire, Britain, France)
A UN led reconstruction effort would likely add more legitimacy and be perceived as a more neutral presence in the region. It would be helpful to go this way, and we could take a less active and dominant role in what I see presently as a no win situation.
believing that this would happen is pure fantasy. We are committing to a long term presence in the region and a drive for democratization of the middle east and intimidation of the countries in the region that are apt to support terrorism (Iran, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia)
Imagine you are an aspiring and even good-hearted Iraqi leader. Where do you go right now. Is working with the American forces a good idea or would it taint you as a collaborator? An independent voice in the light of day? (i.e. a city mayor who is openly critical of some US policies.
Or is it more authentic to participate in a resistance movement against an occupying army?
The United States conquered Iraq, that will always rub nationalists the wrong way even if they have no great animosity toward that country before the occupation. We are an occupying power in the Arab world and we are using the language of imperialism in a region that long was controlled by outside forces (Ottoman Empire, Britain, France)
A UN led reconstruction effort would likely add more legitimacy and be perceived as a more neutral presence in the region. It would be helpful to go this way, and we could take a less active and dominant role in what I see presently as a no win situation.
believing that this would happen is pure fantasy. We are committing to a long term presence in the region and a drive for democratization of the middle east and intimidation of the countries in the region that are apt to support terrorism (Iran, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia)
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jul 23 2003, 03:41 PM)
A UN led reconstruction effort would likely add more legitimacy and be perceived as a more neutral presence in the region. It would be helpful to go this way, and we could take a less active and dominant role in what I see presently as a no win situation.
Especially since the US is 'allowing Iraq to form its own government, so long as it's the one we want them to have'. Right now, it's little more than US imperialism, imposing puppet governments in both Afghanistan and Iraq that are friendly to US policies and wishes. A truly multi-national, pro-freedom force backed up by the UN would certainly help these countries form their own form of government, but the US would never allow it.
I think we should allow UN peace keeping troops in. I would think that the Iraqi people would feel less threatened if they knew that America (and the UK) weren't acting alone. It would give them the impression that there is some sort of check and balance going on and that the US will be held accountable for mistakes and that we'll leave once the job is completed.
It seems a bit presumptuous of The Bush Administraton to expect the same countries they dismissed as "old Europe" as Secretary Rumsfeld characterized France and Germany, to now come running to Washington's aid and get their soldiers killed in Iraq.Before the war the Europeans were dismissed as peaceniks and appeasers. Now, they're supposed to roll up their sleeves and walk in a shooting gallery? I'm not at all surprised that these nations are putting Bush on hold.
Two wrongs don't make a right but it sure makes it even.
Germany and France don't have to send troops if they don't want to. But I think the Iraqi people will remember down the road who helped them reconstruct and who snubed their noses at them over bickering with the US. I would think those two countries would want to befriend the new government of Iraq and their large oil supplies...
QUOTE(Cephus @ Jul 23 2003, 10:35 AM)
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jul 23 2003, 03:52 AM)
QUOTE(Cephus @ Jul 22 2003, 09:55 PM)
Actually, we need to get our own troops *OUT* of Iraq. If military action was going to be taken, it needed to be under the UN flag, not our own.
Well, we'd be fighting with the help of the UN if 3 certain countries in the UN Security Council wasn't in bed with Saddam with a bunch of oil contracts.
As opposed to Bush, who was handing out oil contracts to US companies before we ever went to Iraq?
Okay....tell me. Who was Bush handing out oil contracts to? Haliburton? They are an oil equipment company.
Eeyore Posted on Jul 23 2003, 10:41 AM
QUOTE
Imagine you are an aspiring and even good-hearted Iraqi leader. Where do you go right now. Is working with the American forces a good idea or would it taint you as a collaborator?
Collaberating for what? Making you look like a puppet? That's true. Everyone says Karzi is our puppet even though we have stuck to the fighting part in Afghanistan. You make a good point. The whining international community will call the new government of a Iraq a US puppet unless the UN brings in some advisors as well.
Cephus Posted on Jul 23 2003, 10:49 AM
QUOTE
Especially since the US is 'allowing Iraq to form its own government, so long as it's the one we want them to have'. Right now, it's little more than US imperialism, imposing puppet governments in both Afghanistan and Iraq that are friendly to US policies and wishes.
Oh sure. Let's have hundreds of soldiers die just so iraq can go from a military dictatorship to Islamic State like Iran. No Thank You!. Besides, what is wrong with an American-friendly Iraq? Better than a terrorist haven Iraq like Iran is or Afghanistan was. With an American-Friendly govt, we can assure ourselves that we won't have to go back in their in 20 years to clean it all up again.
Billy Jean Posted on Jul 23 2003, 11:51 AM
QUOTE
Germany and France don't have to send troops if they don't want to. But I think the Iraqi people will remember down the road who helped them reconstruct and who snubed their noses at them over bickering with the US. I would think those two countries would want to befriend the new government of Iraq and their large oil supplies...
Oh. they want in. They just want a UN mandate.
QUOTE(moif @ Jul 19 2003, 06:23 AM)
Given the rising opposition of the Iraqi people to the presence of US troops in Iraq, and given the problems of replacing its ground forces that the US army appears to be facing, should the USA not now reconsider allowing the UN to move peace keeper troops into Iraq?
If not, then why not?
If not, then why not?
First of all the claim of "rising opposition of the Iraqi people to the presence of US troops in Iraq" is unproven. All reports seem to show that the majority of Iraqis still favor the presence of US troops for an extended time.
Most Iraqis want troops to stay, says poll
QUOTE
A majority of Baghdad residents feel US and British troops should stay in Iraq for at least a year, according to the first attempt at an opinion poll.
The You.Gov poll results were released as news emerged that a ground-to-air missile was fired at a US military plane near Baghdad airport.
The poll said 31% wanted troops to stay "a few years", while 25% said "about a year."
Only 13% said they should leave now, while 20% said they should go "within 12 months".
The survey also found that half thought the US-led coalition was right to invade.
You.Gov said there was no certainty that the 798 respondents were a representative sample and that several interviews were conducted with gunfire in the background
The You.Gov poll results were released as news emerged that a ground-to-air missile was fired at a US military plane near Baghdad airport.
The poll said 31% wanted troops to stay "a few years", while 25% said "about a year."
Only 13% said they should leave now, while 20% said they should go "within 12 months".
The survey also found that half thought the US-led coalition was right to invade.
You.Gov said there was no certainty that the 798 respondents were a representative sample and that several interviews were conducted with gunfire in the background
Even with some doubts of the complete accuracy of the poll it clearly show significant support for the presence of US troops. Their presence is not the problem for most Iraqis. I don't think the there is a nesscesity for UN troops. It seems to me the allies can gather enough troops themselves. After all 5,000 troops from the UN (The seize of the Afghanistan Security force, also controlled by the UN) wouldn't be too much help anyway.
It's probably wise to let the UN stick to rebuilding, their military prowess is, questionable...That said other troops would be of some help and they already have a mandate...
QUOTE(UN Security Council Resolution 1483 @ 22 May 2003)
Appeal to Member States and concerned organizations... to contribute to conditions of stability and security in Iraq
QUOTE(moif @ Jul 19 2003, 06:23 AM)
Given the rising opposition of the Iraqi people to the presence of US troops in Iraq, and given the problems of replacing its ground forces that the US army appears to be facing, should the USA not now reconsider allowing the UN to move peace keeper troops into Iraq?
Turnea made as good point that the rising opposition against the troops are pointed at ordinary Iraqis
The main resistance is coming from the remaining Republican Guard members who are loyal to Saddam
turnea
Do you want proof?
http://www.prolog.net/webnews/wed/di/Qiraq...o.Rkcl_DuR.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from...ent/3025800.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,980453,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/18/internat...2d50d2ac8d41af9
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L20293517.htm
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectI...DA5D3C86685DB76
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap200...030623_881.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3017332.stm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1541EDT0668.DTL
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/23/internat...abe217cc14b3765
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...sp?story=418750
http://www.news.scotsman.com/international...fm?id=692882003
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030626/.../D7RTD2KG0.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...sp?story=419088
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/internat...4e87513313a9a80
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030626_1431.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3027906.stm
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;j...storyID=3001598
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0...2844584,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/27/...oops/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90662,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3048818.stm
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;j...storyID=3041985
http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reute...asp?reg=MIDEAST
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/s...,992589,00.html
http://www.swisspolitics.org/en/news/index...news_id=4013690
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,993252,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/07/...7430140625.html
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticl...&storyID=335889
http://electroniciraq.net/news/946.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/11/sprj.irq....s.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA00
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_re...se=20030742.txt
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3070223.stm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/24by7panews/p...ll&siteid=50143
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8341
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_re...se=20030750.txt
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3079531.stm
http://antiwar.com/ewens/combat.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/07/18/gra...n.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CB10
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/...8639726153.html
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...jbYRp0&refer=us
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20030724/D.../D7SFSG0G0.html
Iraqi guerilla's say they are not fighting for Saddam; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/...ain564357.shtml
How many Iraqi's have died?; http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch...x.mhtml?pid=842
The sons are dead, but resistance will grow; http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch...x.mhtml?pid=842
Iraqi resistance takes on a new face; http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG24Ak03.html
QUOTE
First of all the claim of "rising opposition of the Iraqi people to the presence of US troops in Iraq" is unproven. All reports seem to show that the majority of Iraqis still favor the presence of US troops for an extended time.
Do you want proof?
http://www.prolog.net/webnews/wed/di/Qiraq...o.Rkcl_DuR.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from...ent/3025800.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,980453,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/18/internat...2d50d2ac8d41af9
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L20293517.htm
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectI...DA5D3C86685DB76
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap200...030623_881.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3017332.stm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1541EDT0668.DTL
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/23/internat...abe217cc14b3765
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...sp?story=418750
http://www.news.scotsman.com/international...fm?id=692882003
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030626/.../D7RTD2KG0.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...sp?story=419088
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/internat...4e87513313a9a80
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030626_1431.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3027906.stm
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;j...storyID=3001598
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0...2844584,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/27/...oops/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90662,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3048818.stm
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;j...storyID=3041985
http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reute...asp?reg=MIDEAST
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/s...,992589,00.html
http://www.swisspolitics.org/en/news/index...news_id=4013690
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,993252,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/07/...7430140625.html
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticl...&storyID=335889
http://electroniciraq.net/news/946.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/11/sprj.irq....s.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA00
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_re...se=20030742.txt
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3070223.stm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/24by7panews/p...ll&siteid=50143
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8341
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_re...se=20030750.txt
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3079531.stm
http://antiwar.com/ewens/combat.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/07/18/gra...n.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CB10
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/...8639726153.html
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...jbYRp0&refer=us
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20030724/D.../D7SFSG0G0.html
Iraqi guerilla's say they are not fighting for Saddam; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/...ain564357.shtml
How many Iraqi's have died?; http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch...x.mhtml?pid=842
The sons are dead, but resistance will grow; http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch...x.mhtml?pid=842
Iraqi resistance takes on a new face; http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG24Ak03.html
Um...Moif. Those are all from incidents of former R.G. killing our guys....not ordinary Iraqis.
GoAmerica
In actual fact, the killers are not identified.
The point I am making is both; that the death toll is rising, and that (as seen in the latter links) most of those now engaged in fighting against the Americans are not doing so for Saddam Hussein.
I see a very clear pattern of escalation in Iraq, and I personally lay the blame at the feet of the Shi'ite clerics of Iran who are clearly trying to stir up trouble and destabilise the entire region for their own purposes.
QUOTE
Um...Moif. Those are all from incidents of former R.G. killing our guys....not ordinary Iraqis.
In actual fact, the killers are not identified.
The point I am making is both; that the death toll is rising, and that (as seen in the latter links) most of those now engaged in fighting against the Americans are not doing so for Saddam Hussein.
I see a very clear pattern of escalation in Iraq, and I personally lay the blame at the feet of the Shi'ite clerics of Iran who are clearly trying to stir up trouble and destabilise the entire region for their own purposes.
QUOTE(moif @ Jul 24 2003, 05:58 PM)
GoAmerica
I see a very clear pattern of escalation in Iraq, and I personally lay the blame at the feet of the Shi'ite clerics of Iran who are clearly trying to stir up trouble and destabilise the entire region for their own purposes.
QUOTE
Um...Moif. Those are all from incidents of former R.G. killing our guys....not ordinary Iraqis.
I see a very clear pattern of escalation in Iraq, and I personally lay the blame at the feet of the Shi'ite clerics of Iran who are clearly trying to stir up trouble and destabilise the entire region for their own purposes.
If the fact that it may be Iranian clerics who are rallying these killers, then UN troops basically won't make a difference!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.