SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (186994)4/24/2004 7:41:40 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574005
 
What a mess. The Iraqi's "insurgents" are getting more effective, not less effective.

It was a mistake to go in... but we've accomplished the mission, SH is gone; no wmd's. It's time to get out and let them build their own government, as they see fit. Set a date. And let them take responsibility; self-determination. It's the "conservative" thing to do.

Nation building doesn't work; whatever we "build" won't last anyway.

Four U.S. GIs Die in Iraq Rocket Attack
28 minutes ago

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD - Insurgents struck a U.S. military base north of Baghdad with rockets, killing four soldiers, around dawn on Saturday, a U.S. official said, while an apparent suicide car bomb exploded near a base in Tikrit, killing at least three Iraqis.

Two 57-mm rockets slammed into the base in Taji, at around 5:30 a.m., Air Force Lt. Col. Sam Hudspath said. Taji is a former Iraqi air force base 12 miles north of Baghdad that is now used by the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division.

Further north, the car bomb in Tikrit tore into a row of shops near the main U.S. base in the city. Witnesses said they believed the blast was targeting a convoy of Iraqi officials heading to the mayor's office in the city, hometown of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and a center for anti-U.S. resistance.

Video footage from Associated Press Television News showed three dead bodies in the blackened husk of a car. It was not immediately clear whether the dead were bystanders or attackers.

The blast appeared to be from a suicide attacker who set off a car bomb, said Master Sgt. Robert Powell of the Army's 1st Infantry Division at the Tikrit base. No U.S. soldiers were hurt.

Elsewhere, a Marine died from combat injuries suffered on April 14 while fighting guerrillas in Iraq (news - web sites)'s western Anbar province. The Marines have been besieging the Anbar city of Fallujah since the beginning of the month, but the military has not been specifying if Marine casualties from Anbar are from that campaign.

And an Iraqi woman who works as a U.S. military translator was shot and killed south of Baghdad along with her husband Saturday, as they drove to a U.S. base, a hospital official said. A pair of roadside bombs exploded northeast of Baghdad, injuring three Iraqi police and a 4-year-old girl.

The deaths of the four soldiers in Baghdad and the Marine brought to 106 the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq since the beginning of April. Since March 2003, 714 service-members have died in this country.

The Pentagon (news - web sites) announced Friday that 595 U.S. soldiers have been wounded in the past two weeks, raising the total number of troops wounded in combat to 3,864 since the start of the conflict.

On Friday, U.S. commanders repeated blunt warnings that the Marine assault on Fallujah could resume, meaning a revival of heavy fighting that has killed hundreds of Iraqis in the city. Marines say guerrillas in the city have not been sincerely abiding by a call to surrender heavy weapons in their arsenals.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt suggested Marines could storm the city within days.

"Our patience is not eternal. ... We're talking days," Kimmitt said.

A day earlier, the U.N.'s top envoy for Iraq said the 25 members of Iraq's U.S.-picked Governing Council should be excluded from a planned caretaker government that is supposed to take nominal sovereignty from the U.S.-led occupation on June 30.

While a group of "technocrats" runs the interim government, the council members should spend the next nine months campaigning for elections due by the end of January, said the envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi.

Washington has thrown its backing behind Brahimi's proposal, suggesting the United States is prepared to allow the removal of Iraqis it had put forward to run the country.

Brahimi also said the United Nations (news - web sites) was unlikely to send peacekeepers to Iraq.

Brahimi, who the United States has asked to help select an interim Iraqi government, said the Governing Council should be dissolved as planned on June 30.



"They have said twice, not once, in official documents they signed, that our term will end on the 30th of June," Brahimi said Friday on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos."

Brahimi said Iraq's politicians should be elected to their posts, not installed.

"People who have political parties and are leaders of their parties should get really to win the election," he said. "And stay out of the interim government."

Instead, Iraq should be governed in the seven-month interim period before January elections by a government of "technocrats" representative of Iraq's ethnic diversity, Brahimi has said.

Brahimi said in a separate interview that it was unlikely that the United Nations will send its "blue berets" or peacekeeping troops to Iraq. In the interview, with Egypt's Middle East News agency, the envoy said U.S.-led multinational forces and Iraqi security forces should be used to stabilize Iraq after the June 30 handover of nominal sovereignty.

Also Friday, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said the war in Iraq is going "reasonably well" but acknowledged the United States faces long-term involvement there. Gen. Richard Myers made the assessment just hours after the Pentagon announced the number of American troops wounded in Iraq soared over the past two weeks.

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East, Army Gen. John Abizaid, suggested in an interview with The New York Times in Qatar on Friday that he was likely to ask for another extension in the current troop levels in Iraq, now at 135,000, and might even ask for more troops beyond that.

Myers also said fighting terrorism is a long-term commitment and said, "Decades is probably not unreasonable."

In South Korea (news - web sites), hundreds of demonstrators rallied on Saturday to protest the government's plan to send 3,000 troops to Iraq to help U.S.-led coalition forces rebuild the war-torn nation.

The deployment, pledged earlier this year for the northern Iraq oil town of Kirkuk, was put on hold amid concerns it would involve combat operations in violation of a parliamentary mandate for peacekeeping.

South Korea is now considering two other, more peaceable towns in the northern Kurdish region of Iraq, Sulaimaniyah and Irbil.

South Korea's contingent would make it the biggest coalition partner after the United States and Britain.

In the restive town of Baqouba on Friday, a roadside bomb blasted an Iraqi police patrol, wounding three officers, witnesses said. Another roadside bomb exploded in the town on Saturday, as a U.S. military convoy passed, injuring a 4-year-old Iraqi girl, said Dr. Hussein Ali Hadi from main city hospital.

Also Friday, the top U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, announced that the new Iraqi army would begin recruiting former high-level officers from Saddam Hussein's disbanded military — and he eased a ban on former Baath Party members, allowing thousands of teachers and professors to return to work in schools.



To: tejek who wrote (186994)4/26/2004 2:18:42 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574005
 
If I am, its because I see him as a serious threat to our democracy. That motivates me in a way that nothing else can.

If you think that then its a good reason to be against Bush but it isn't a good reason to not consider other ideas. It is possible to both oppose Bush and keep an open mind at the same time.

I look at the points, think about them, and then accept, reject, or withhold judgment on them.

Tim, your statement above sounds very rational and open but my experience of your process is that you look at the points, think about them and then reject them.........period.


In response to the issues raised in this current discussion I have ended up rejecting them more often then not. But I did and do entertain them and treat them seriously first and I don't attack others for thinking that way even if I do say the ideas themselves are incorrect.

"The fact that I might be wrong goes without saying. Its a given, but you don't seem to recognize that given for yourself. People who disagree aren't just mistaken they are "blind", or "extreme partisans". "

That isn't true.......during the war right after shock and awe when Iraq seemed to collapse with ease, I started to admit I might have been wrong in my view of what would happen. Frankly, I was stunned and I said so on SI. I was embarrassed that I had so misread the situation. Events since then, of course, have confirmed my original expectations.


You do reconsider your ideas in the light of new evidence, and to be fair I must give you credit for that; but both before the invasion, and esp. after some of the more recent problems have started you have put down almost anyone who disagrees as "blind", or as an "extreme partisan". In between you where uncertain about your position, so you where not attacking others or being totally dismissive of their ideas, but before and after your uncertainty you did act in the way I described. If the evidence in available to you at any given moment, strongly supports (in your opinion) the idea that you are right, then you don't even seem to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

BTW I have never heard that kind of honesty from any of the GOP members of this thread including you.

I've always been honest on this thread. Sometimes I have been wrong, in your opinion I've probably often been wrong, but wrong does not equal dishonest.

How can you say that "admitting that there are potentially fatal flaws" is a sign that I don't think I can be wrong.

Focus on "admitting". If you call on someone to admit something that means that you think they already know it but are just being dishonest. Even if they are wrong they might not recognize that fact and so they would have nothing to admit.

Adding to my concern and frustration is that I don't believe the people in charge know what they are doing.

You might be surprised but I think this is to an extent true. I believe the people in charge are reasonably competent but they don't know exactly what to do or how to do it. War is muddled that way and so is politics (both in the US and within Iraq). Competent people are more likely to make the correct guess but dealing with situations like those in Iraq is going to involve guesses and muddling through. The current administration does not have some precise plan for success in Iraq. The difference between us seems to be that I would not expect them to have one. I do think in hindsight they could have handled some things better but judging them in the recognition that they don't have the benefit of hindsight I would not say they have done an awful job even if they definitely have not done a perfect one.

Tim, I would love to think you are this incredibly fair and objective person, but again, when DR and Stevo Harris were calling me and other liberals on this thread every name in the book, I didn't hear you jump up and accuse them of being belittling or mean spirited. Your lips were tightly sealed.

That's an exaggeration. I did respond in one or two more extreme cases. Others I probably never saw because I don't always read every message on this thread.

I don't think it is unreasonable or should be unexpected that I will react stronger to insults, put downs, or inaccurate statements to or about me then I would react to such statements made about third parties. If I was going to try to jump on every such statement made on this thread, people would probably put me on ignore rather then have to read an unending series of "net nanny" posts.

We have few friends in the world.........do you think that's because Bush is so nice but people are generally mean........or that every envy's us? No.....he is hated because he acted like a butthole with hubris and mendacity. Just as he is hated so are many on SI.

I don't think Bush is "so nice and reasonable", or "mendacity and hubris". Bush has different ideas an opinions then for example Chirac or most of the middle east. Both sides feel strongly both about the correctness of their opinions and the importance of them. Therefore you get conflict.

But lets imagine for the sake of argument that Bush really is an inflexible, spiteful SOB. That doesn't mean that everyone who agrees with him about Iraq or some other issue is an inflexible, spiteful SOB or should be treat as if they where one.

Tim