Obama, McCain, and the Wars

[River]

These announcements from Iran seem like a Rorscharch test sometimes - the reactions are more informative than the actual report. When it comes to the Mid-East in general, I'm not sure who's even telling the truth and who's pushing an agenda or posturing. Maybe they are building nukes. Or maybe they're just playing an elaborate game of chicken because they get a kick out of watching the West soil itself.

[solicitr]

“It is my purpose, as one who lived and acted in these days, first to show how easily the tragedy of the Second World War could have been prevented; how the malice of the wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous; how the structure and habits of democratic states, unless they are welded into larger organisms, lack those elements of persistence and conviction which alone can give security to humble masses; how even in matters of self-preservation, no policy is pursued for even ten or fifteen years at a time. We shall see how the counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents mortal danger; how the middle course adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life may be found to lead direct to the bull’s-eye of disaster…” Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

[solicitr]

This could just as easily have been posted in the "media Bias" thread, since the press' complte burying of the story certainly is an element, but the important part of the story is, well, the story:

Iraqi troops take control of Anbar province

This is *huge.* Anbar, scene of the bloodiest fighting, the worst terror attacks, the province of Fallujah and Ramadi, the former 'capital' of the Islamic State of Mesopotamia (ie AQ-I): is now in a condition, and the Iraqi Army is in such a condition, that the Americans can hand it off. The Iraqis are standing up and we're standing down.

Who'd a thunk it two years ago, when Obama & Co. tried to force a pullout by last March? God bless David Petraeus, and the troops.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to claim the story was buried when a major hurricane is hitting, McCain just named a woman for VP, the Democrats have just finished their convention, and the Republicans are about to start theirs.

It's huge. I hope it works out.

[vison]

This could just as easily have been posted in the "media Bias" thread, since the press' complte burying of the story certainly is an element, but the important part of the story is, well, the story:

Iraqi troops take control of Anbar province

This is *huge.* Anbar, scene of the bloodiest fighting, the worst terror attacks, the province of Fallujah and Ramadi, the former 'capital' of the Islamic State of Mesopotamia (ie AQ-I): is now in a condition, and the Iraqi Army is in such a condition, that the Americans can hand it off. The Iraqis are standing up and we're standing down.

Who'd a thunk it two years ago, when Obama & Co. tried to force a pullout by last March? God bless David Petraeus, and the troops.

Now, which Iraqi warlord is in charge of this particular part of the Iraqi army? They're all on the US payroll, and I have to say it makes MUCH more sense to pay these guys than to keep having American soldiers getting killed. Looks better at home, might make some people think that things are getting better in Iraq. Still, there is going to be some kind of, you know, consolidation at some point. Someone's going to come out on top. Any ideas which guy it will be?

[solicitr]

Now, which Iraqi warlord is in charge of this particular part of the Iraqi army? They're all on the US payroll, and I have to say it makes MUCH more sense to pay these guys than to keep having American soldiers getting killed. Looks better at home, might make some people think that things are getting better in Iraq.

Vison, please actually learn something about the war in Iraq before you spew bigoted ignorance in public. It's embarrassing.

You just can't stand the fact that we've won the war you were praying we'd lose.

[vison]

deleted by vison.

[sauronsfinger]

Of course, the real question is does a limited technical success in one area of Iraq then retoractively justify the USA making war on a nation that never attacked it in the first place?

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

We've won the war in Iraq? That really is news to me. The only actual objective accomplished was the arrest, trial, conviction, and execution of Saddam Hussein.

The country has become more stable as of late due to the fact that in general the mixed neighborhoods have become ethnically pure neighborhoods. Al Sadr has stopped direct engagement (and thankfully we've stopped directly engaging him).

AQI was an American invention, and Al Qaeda in general viewed it as brand name infringement. Getting the leader of a group that didn't exist before the invasion is how big of an accomplishment? And that was the full extent of stopping Iraqi supported terrorists, especially since under Saddam there weren't any.

The current strategy is to try to hand things over to the local warlords, which contradicts the goal of instituting a western style libera democracy.

Actually if we had any sense in the Iraq issue we'd hand the country over to Al Sadr, because he's a nationalist and therefore won't support Iran trying to influence Iraq too much. Unlike Maliki who is rather friendly towards Iran. Since it looks like Bush wants to bomb Iran directly or by proxy before he leaves office, the last thing we want is the Iraqi government supporting our newfound enemy.

[N.E. Brigand]

This could just as easily have been posted in the "media Bias" thread, since the press' complete burying of the story certainly is an element...
Iraqi troops take control of Anbar province

Well, I heard this on the news last night, so it hasn't been completely buried.

[vison]

We've won the war in Iraq? That really is news to me. The only actual objective accomplished was the arrest, trial, conviction, and execution of Saddam Hussein.

The country has become more stable as of late due to the fact that in general the mixed neighborhoods have become ethnically pure neighborhoods. Al Sadr has stopped direct engagement (and thankfully we've stopped directly engaging him).

AQI was an American invention, and Al Qaeda in general viewed it as brand name infringement. Getting the leader of a group that didn't exist before the invasion is how big of an accomplishment? And that was the full extent of stopping Iraqi supported terrorists, especially since under Saddam there weren't any.

The current strategy is to try to hand things over to the local warlords, which contradicts the goal of instituting a western style libera democracy.

Actually if we had any sense in the Iraq issue we'd hand the country over to Al Sadr, because he's a nationalist and therefore won't support Iran trying to influence Iraq too much. Unlike Maliki who is rather friendly towards Iran. Since it looks like Bush wants to bomb Iran directly or by proxy before he leaves office, the last thing we want is the Iraqi government supporting our newfound enemy.

Precisely.

[halplm]

Well, if Sol could post here, he'd have something to say about how that's a load of nonsense, but I'm not following it as much as he has.

[vison]

Well, if Sol could post here, he'd have something to say about how that's a load of nonsense, but I'm not following it as much as he has.

I'm sure he would.

But since you haven't been following it very much how would you know if it's nonsense or not?

There are about a zillion places to look for information about Iraq, websites for newspapers around the world, including newspapers in Iraq itself. The America media do NOT report everything they should, as has been the case from the beginning of this invasion they have supinely followed the Bush administration line.

It's a disgrace to journalism.

[halplm]

and they've buried positive stories since the surge started working. That's hardly following Bush's line.

I lost interest in Iraq when it was obvious we had won, and all that was left was the cleanup. This is about when the media lost interest too, although one might argue it should have been monumental news given how everyone on the left was convinced it would be a collosal failure.

And I can tell its nonsense by reading it, thank you.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Dutch intel: US to strike Iran in coming weeks

Ok, that's a pretty bold prediction.

[Padme]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_ ... ian_deaths

KABUL, Afghanistan - Two videos that appear to show the bodies of at least 10 children and many more adults covered in blankets and white shrouds lend weight to Afghan and U.N. allegations that a U.S.-led raid killed scores of civilians last month.

One video, obtained by The Associated Press on Monday and apparently taken by a cell phone, is grainy and details such as a precise body count are difficult to make out. But it appears that several dozen bodies, all covered by blankets, are lined up one next to another in a mosque.

Wailing Afghan women and men occasionally lift the blankets to show dead children or the disfigured faces of men.

A second video shows three young children wrapped in white shrouds. A fourth child has gruesome head wounds. In total, the bodies of at least 10 children can be seen.

The two videos, both obtained by The Associated Press, give weight to Afghan and U.N. findings that scores of civilians, including 60 children and 15 women, died in the Aug. 22 U.S.-led raid in the village of Azizabad. U.S. special forces and Afghan commandos carried out the operation.

A U.S. investigation found that only seven civilians died, as well as up to 35 militants, but the U.S. on Sunday said it would reopen the investigation because of emerging new evidence, an apparent reference to the videos, which have been in the possession of Afghan intelligence and the U.N. but have leaked to media outlets.

The new evidence that prompted the review is "some imagery evidence" that came to the attention of Gen. David D. McKiernan, who is the commander of the NATO-led force here, over the weekend, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Monday.

He declined to say whether it was the cell phone video or something else.

"There is some evidence that suggests that the evidence that the U.S. military used in ... its investigation may not have been complete," Whitman said.

He said the general to be sent to Afghanistan by Central Command will review the initial investigation and how it was done.

But it is also possible that there will be a new investigation of the raid in Azizabad itself — this time by Central Command — said Lt. Cmdr. Bill Speaks, a spokesman for the command in Tampa., Fla.

The grainy cell phone video, shot by an unnamed Afghan aid official and handed over to the United Nations mission in Kabul, shows two long rows of people apparently killed during the raid, laid on the mosque floor before burial.

As Afghan women and a young boy sob over some of the bodies, bearded and turbaned men walk around, lifting some of the scarfs and blankets covering the dead.

At least eight children can be identified in the two videos. Two of them look as though they are asleep. One child has half of a skull blown off.

It was impossible to verify conclusively that the videos showed the aftermath of the Azizabad attack, but the contents of the video matched claims by Afghan and U.N. officials that the videos showed the U.S. operation killed far more civilians than the military has admitted to.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has for years now warned the U.S. and NATO that it must stop killing civilians in its bombing runs, saying such deaths undermine his government and the international mission. But the Azizabad incident could finally push Karzai to take action.

Shortly after the Azizabad attack, he ordered a review of whether the U.S. and NATO should be allowed to use airstrikes or carry out raids in villages. He also called for an updated "status of force" agreement between the Afghan government and foreign militaries. That review has not yet been completed.

Nek Mohammad Ishaq, a provincial council member in Herat and a member of the Afghan investigating commission, has said photographs and video taken of the victims are with Afghanistan's secretive intelligence service.

Afghan officials say U.S. special forces and Afghan commandos raided the village while hundreds of people were gathered in a large compound for a memorial service honoring a tribal leader, Timor Shah, who was killed eight months ago by a rival, Nader Tawakal.

The U.S. investigative report released Tuesday said American and Afghan forces took fire from militants while approaching Azizabad and that "justified use of well-aimed small-arms fire and close air support to defend the combined force."

The report said investigators discovered evidence that the militants planned to attack a nearby coalition base. Evidence collected included weapons, explosives, intelligence materials and an access badge to the base, as well as photographs from inside and outside the base.

But Afghan officials say Reza and other members of his family provided security and reconstruction work for the nearby U.S. base, and were not Taliban.

I don't even know what to say about this.

[sauronsfinger]

War is legalized murder. And thats just for starters.
I can think of rare occassions where it was necessary. Stopping Hitler from his plans for the world would qualify in my mind. But this garbage? Hardly.

[Inanna]

War is legalized murder. And thats just for starters.
I can think of rare occassions where it was necessary. Stopping Hitler from his plans for the world would qualify in my mind. But this garbage? Hardly.

And could Bush be ever tried for War crimes?

How does this work? Can only the losing side be convicted of war crimes?

[sauronsfinger]

Tried by who?

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

War is legalized murder. And thats just for starters.
I can think of rare occassions where it was necessary. Stopping Hitler from his plans for the world would qualify in my mind. But this garbage? Hardly.

And could Bush be ever tried for War crimes?

How does this work? Can only the losing side be convicted of war crimes?

Theoretically anyone be accused. I think Slobodon accused a few US leaders of war crimes before he died. In order to accuse, you need to be in the government of a country that is a signatory to the war crimes tribunal.

In practice certain people are clearly exempt, particularly those who are in charge of very powerful countries and thus could never be forced to attend the trial. It may be the case that Bush is guilty, but unless the next US president arrests him and hands him over, he'll never be tried.

Some US officials and former officials know that they should never travel to certain countries because they know that if they do they will be in the jurisdiction of those countries and thus subject to arrest the moment they land. Since they are in the US they are completely safe.

However, for the case to have any merit, there has to be some basis for the accusation. One could make a case for Bush and his cabinet being war criminals. It would be much harder to make a case that government officials of Switzerland are war criminals. Again there's the theory versus the reality because the victor is seldom tried no matter what happened during the war.