Iraq anyone? or North Korea?

No, but I've never ever said anything just because I disliked Bush. All I've said on this subject had been carefully reasoned, thought about and supported by whatever facts possible.
And, as you should know, it's absolutely impossible for anyone but the leading officials of the USA to prove why you were there. The official reason was those weapons. And, as I've reasoned before, was probably the worst and stupidest reason possible.
In truth, it's probably several different reasons, one of them being that Bush hates Saddam(Or at least he appears to hate Saddam. The first thing I heard through USA Media on september 11th was "Saddam did it." and "White House officials have said that it's probably Saddam". Bush's administration has been trying to link Saddam to a lot of bad things, and hasn't actually succeeded with anything), another reason being oil, yet another reason being that Saddam was generally a bastard. But none of it can proven, it can only be reasoned.
 
It all comes downto money and power. Whoever controls the money has the power. People need to remember that the middleastern countries have long been used as game piecies by foriegn governments and this will not change till new power sources are broght forth to the public domain.
 
Ok, here's one for the "Bush" side. WHy did it take so long to take down Iraq-

A book review on Allies: The U.S., Britain, Europe, and the War in Iraq
By William Shawcross

"Every doubt about Saddam and his capabilities is now being used by critics to reinforce the case against war. Yet as Mr Shawcross argues, the responsible reaction to such doubts, about a serial slaughterer, invader and user of chemical weapons, should rather have been to refuse to give Saddam the benefit of them. That was true in 1991, in 1998 when UN inspections ceased, and in 2003. So why, critics ask, did it take so long if it was really so necessary? And why couldn't Iraq be dealt with through the UN, given that inspections, sanctions and 17 Security Council resolutions had been handled in that way?

One big answer, Mr Shawcross believes, is President Chirac. He had been a self-declared “dear friend” of Saddam since 1974 when France's then prime minister first met the then vice-president of Iraq and shortly thereafter negotiated a big nuclear-power deal with him as well as a large sale of weapons. There are strong signs that after 1981, when Israel bombed the nuclear reactor that France had sold Iraq, Mr Chirac entered into negotiations to supply another one. And once he was president in the 1990s, France continually undermined efforts in the Security Council to enforce the ceasefire resolution of 1991. That is the context in which President Chirac's supposed efforts in 2002-03 to defend the “international order” and the UN itself need to be placed. In Mr Shawcross's view he was a wrecker, not a defender."

http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2384031

(don't know if the link will allow you to view if you are not a subscriber- if you want me to post more, let me know).
 
Oh where are the WMD?
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2388995

(if the link doesn't work for you and you want the whole thing, let me know.)

"WHEN many were sceptical, David Kay was once confident that some dodgy trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological facilities. He was likewise sure that some aluminium tubes were evidence of Saddam Hussein's pursuit of nuclear weapons. That such a hawkish analyst should now say—as Mr Kay has done since resigning last week as America's chief weapons-hunter in Iraq—that there is probably not much more to find, is more than a little awkward for George Bush. “We were all wrong”, Mr Kay told senators, “and that is most disturbing"

and the role of the president?

"Mr Kay has not alleged any “sexing-up” or bullying by politicians, a small mercy for Mr Bush. But his remarks, seized on by the president's Democratic rivals, leave the president in a tight spot. In October, Mr Kay had observed that “our understanding of Iraq's WMD programme was always bounded by large uncertainties and had to be heavily caveated”. Such caveats, most necessary in relation to Iraq's supposed nuclear programme, were largely dropped by Mr Bush and his aides in their pre-war statements. Some in his administration—though not the robustly unapologetic vice-president— now seem to be inserting them retrospectively, and Mr Bush himself is emphasising Mr Hussein's general badness. But the questions raised by Mr Kay's volte-face may only go away if an independent inquiry is set up to answer them. "
 
For those of you who might have missed out on this- there is an issue raised whether the US was doing it all it could to stop terrorism before 9-11 and if the US has been doing enough since-

Here is one response-

http://www.economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2540172

National security

The blame game

Was Iraq a distraction from the war against America's real enemies? And could those enemies have been countered earlier?

GEORGE BUSH is running as a war president, a man willing to take the hard decisions needed to defend America from existential threat. As evidence, he claims he took the danger of global terrorism very seriously even before the attacks of September 11th 2001, and that since then he has prosecuted the war on terror with the utmost possible vigour, including the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Given the significance of his war leadership, a credible challenge to either of his claims would be a matter of the utmost consequence. This week, both came under fire from a variety of reputable sources in Washington. Their criticism could resonate far beyond the Beltway because Americans have consistently said that, on terrorism, they trust Mr Bush more than they do John Kerry, his Democratic rival.

On Tuesday March 23rd, the commission set up by Congress to investigate the al-Qaeda attacks released preliminary reports criticising both the Bush and Clinton administrations for their responses to repeated assaults by al-Qaeda on American targets in the 1990s. It argues that both governments focused too much on diplomatic efforts (for example, to try to get Afghanistan to expel Osama bin Laden) rather than military options. It claims intelligence reports to Mr Bush had given warning of a potentially catastrophic terrorist attack against American targets (warnings that were later acknowledged in testimony by Colin Powell, the secretary of state, and Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defence). And it added new details of four opportunities to capture Mr bin Laden himself between December 1998 and July 1999, which it claimed the Clinton administration failed to grasp for fear of killing innocent bystanders.

This was bad enough but, the day before, a new book by Richard Clarke (“Against All Enemies”, Free Press) levelled accusations that could prove even more damaging. Mr Clarke, the counter-terrorism co-ordinator in both the Bush and Clinton administrations, argues that Mr Clinton took the threat of al-Qaeda somewhat more seriously than the Bush administration (and even had successes against it, such as foiling a plot to bomb Los Angeles airport and a hotel in Jordan during the millennium celebrations and disrupting its attempt to take over Bosnia during the Yugoslav wars). The Bush administration was weaker, Mr Clarke claims, because members of the president's inner circle were distracted by their obsession with Saddam Hussein. Before 9/11, they thought the danger from al-Qaeda important; they did not think it urgent.

Mr Clarke says he asked the new administration within a week of its inauguration to discuss the threat from al-Qaeda at the highest (cabinet) level. But such a meeting did not take place until nine months later—only a week before the attacks, and too late to make a difference. Instead, the issue was discussed at a lower level, that of the deputy secretaries. At the first meeting, in Mr Clarke's telling, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, said “I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden. There are others that do [pose an immediate and serious threat] as well, at least as much. Iraqi terrorism, for example.”

The charge that the administration was slow to appreciate the full extent of al-Qaeda's threat may well be politically harmful. In testimony before the commission on March 24th, Mr Clarke dramatically apologised to the relatives of 9/11 victims sitting in the room: “Your government failed you...I failed you.” And the charge that the Bush team was wrongly focused on Iraq instead corroborates the growing view that the president and his team are stubborn over matters of national security (a view that stems partly from the administration's insistence that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq). John Kerry has been repeating the charge of stubbornness at every chance he gets.

The administration has responded to Mr Clarke's charges with a torrent of personal censure, impugning his motives by accusing him of everything from frustrated ambition to political disloyalty and to being “out of the loop” (Dick Cheney's term). Given Mr Clarke's background—he arguably knows as much about al-Qaeda as anyone in America—this attack may not work.

But Mr Clarke's central charge is probably unproven. Given what was known or believed about Saddam in early 2001, the administration had every cause to worry about Iraq when it came into office. The real question is whether it could have done more than it did against al-Qaeda, regardless of the reason.

Mr Clarke says it could. He argues that the administration could have strengthened the Northern Alliance, the armed opposition group fighting the Taliban for control of Afghanistan. It could also have pushed harder to deploy Predator drone aircraft over Afghanistan to kill Mr bin Laden before 9/11. It could have spent more money reducing its vulnerabilities at home (in fact, the Justice Department did not list fighting terrorism as one of its main goals before 9/11). It could have done more to encourage, say, educational alternatives to radical Islamism in Muslim countries threatened by al-Qaeda.

The report by the 9/11 commission provided some corroboration for these claims of negligence to act. So, this week, did internal administration documents which showed that, after 9/11, the Office of Management and Budget cut by two-thirds a request for $1.5 billion of additional counter-terrorism funding from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In reply, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, argued (in an article published in the Washington Post, not coincidentally, on the day Mr Clarke's book appeared) that the administration did in fact increase funding for counter-terrorism before 9/11. It did consider deploying armed Predators, but military experts said the craft were not ready. It rejected sending help to the Northern Alliance on the ground that the group was then too weak to make significant advances anyway. As several of the officials giving testimony to the commission argued, it would have been politically impossible to have sent substantial commando forces into Afghanistan before 9/11: neither surrounding countries nor the American Congress would have countenanced such a move.

Most important, Miss Rice argued, even if the administration had done everything Mr Clarke wanted, that would probably not have been enough to deal with al-Qaeda or stop the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. Mr Bush, she said, was tired of “swatting flies”. Something more was needed, which the administration was working on throughout 2001. But it was too late.

And there, for the moment, the debate rests. The Bush administration was urged to do more before 9/11, and chose not to, for reasons that seemed right and reasonable at the time. It was working on a strategy to deal with al-Qaeda, but too slowly to do any good. Some of its members were more concerned about Saddam Hussein than Osama bin Laden. Nothing here can be called indefensible. Whether this is the record of someone who treated al-Qaeda with the utmost seriousness is another matter.
 
Is this then goodbye Bush, or merely a bump in the road, on the way to a next presidency? Hmm....
 
Sander said:
Is this then goodbye Bush, or merely a bump in the road, on the way to a next presidency? Hmm....
Click to expand...

If you read the papers you noticed a majority of the American still feels safe with Bush (53% or something, only 29% with Kerry)

Gotta wait for the Ricce.
 
Looks like they are planning to send more troops to Iraq-

A bloody anniversary

Apr 14th 2004
From The Economist Global Agenda


A year after the fall of Saddam Hussein, coalition forces are battling insurgencies by both Sunni and Shia militants, compounded by a wave of hostage-taking. In a rare news conference, George Bush has pledged that America will meet the June 30th deadline for handing power to Iraqis

AMERICA, Britain and their main allies in the occupation of Iraq continue to insist that their resolve is unshakable—despite the past fortnight having seen some of the worst violence in the country since the coalition overthrew Saddam Hussein’s regime a year ago. On Monday April 12th, America said about 70 coalition troops and 700 Iraqi militants had died in the upsurge in violence so far this month—it could not say how many Iraqi civilians had also died. On Tuesday, President George Bush held a rare news conference in which he vowed to stay the course. The June 30th deadline for handing sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government will be met, he said, and Iraqis will elect a permanent government by December 15th 2005. “We're not an imperial power…We're a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest,” the president asserted. If more American troops are needed to ensure the handover of power can take place, he said, more will be sent. In his address, which was primarily aimed at an increasingly sceptical audience at home, Mr Bush drew a comparison between the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists who have bombed buses in Jerusalem, those who attacked a nightclub in Bali in October 2002, and those who blew up commuter trains in Madrid last month, killing almost 200 people.

The president's comments came a day after Iraqi negotiators sent by the American-appointed Governing Council had resumed their talks with Sunni Muslim militants in Fallujah, west of Baghdad. By Wednesday, they had succeeded in extending a fragile, informal truce that began at the weekend, following a week of fierce fighting between the Sunnis and American forces. The Council was also trying to mediate a ceasefire in the clashes between coalition forces and a militant group led by Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical cleric from Iraq’s Shia Muslim majority.

American troops have laid siege to Fallujah and launched assaults on the Sunni rebels holding out there, after the gruesome murder and mutilation of four American ex-soldiers in the city on March 31st. While the battle raged in Fallujah, Mr Sadr’s Shia militants launched attacks in Baghdad and across central and southern Iraq. American officials had predicted a resurgence in attacks as the anniversary of Saddam’s toppling approached, and as the coalition prepared to hand power to an interim government. But they had not expected such intense and widespread violence—especially from Shias, who had previously seemed content at the downfall of Saddam and his Sunni-dominated regime.

American forces have vowed to arrest Mr Sadr over the murder of a rival Shia cleric last year, and to destroy his militia. But members of the Governing Council are reported to be seeking a deal in which Mr Sadr would disband his militia while America would abandon its attempts to arrest him. Council members worry that, otherwise, American troops might storm the holy city of Najaf, where Mr Sadr is thought to be holed up, causing more bloodshed and angering more Iraqis. On Wednesday, as American forces continued to mass outside the city, an envoy appointed by Mr Sadr said the cleric had asked him to present a set of peace proposals to American officials, though he declined to disclose details.

To complicate things further, the past week has seen a wave of kidnappings of foreigners in Iraq. America said on Monday that seven contractors for an American company and two of its soldiers were missing after an attack on a convoy near Baghdad. America’s proconsul in Iraq, Paul Bremer, has said that there will be no negotiations with those holding American citizens.

In some cases the hostage-takers' aim seems to be to pressure America’s allies to pull out their troops. On Tuesday, an Islamist group said it was holding four Italian civilians and demanded that Italy withdraw its forces from Iraq. There was still no sign of three kidnapped Japanese civilians whose captors had threatened to kill them within days if Japan did not withdraw its 550 non-combat troops. Japan’s prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, has insisted that the troops will stay.

Even nationals of countries that opposed the Iraq war or took no part in the military operation are being kidnapped. Among those being held are an Arab from east Jerusalem and a Syrian-born Canadian. And, in recent days, groups of civilians from China and Russia—both opponents of the Iraq war—have briefly been held, only to be released later. On Wednesday, Moscow offered to airlift more than 800 Russians and citizens of other ex-Soviet countries out of Iraq.

There is a danger that the seizures of foreigners could succeed in peeling away support for the American-led operation in Iraq. Spain’s new, Socialist government—elected after the Madrid terrorist attacks—insists it will only keep its troops in Iraq if the United Nations is given a major role there. (On Tuesday Kofi Annan, the UN's secretary-general, said the continuing violence would prevent his organisation from sending a big team to the country “for the foreseeable future”.) The leader of Australia’s Labor opposition, Mark Latham, has promised to bring the country’s troops home if he wins an election due later this year, which polls currently suggest he will. Kazakhstan, Thailand and the Philippines have all said they will pull out their troops if the security situation worsens.

With Mr Bush’s “coalition of the willing” showing signs of fraying, Iraq’s own security forces, being rebuilt and trained by coalition troops, still seem unprepared to take over from them. In Baghdad, Iraqi police abandoned their posts when Mr Sadr’s men attacked. Elsewhere, some even switched sides. Some Iraqi army troops refused to go to Fallujah to support American marines’ attempts to quell the uprising there.

Some American politicians—including allies of Mr Bush—have called on him to send extra troops to Iraq now, and to consider delaying the handover of sovereignty. General John Abizaid, the head of the American military's Central Command, said on Monday that he had asked for around 10,000 extra troops. America had been planning shortly to reduce its troop levels in Iraq from the current 130,000 to around 115,000, but large numbers of battle-weary soldiers are now being told their return home is being delayed.
 
According to Yahoo News North Korea is saying that we are on the brink of war! Whoops - that was three weeks ago!


Friday April 9, 9:24 PM
North Korea says standoff with US at "brink of nuclear war"

AFP Photo

North Korea said Friday the standoff over its atomic ambitions was on the brink of nuclear war as US Vice President Dick Cheney headed to the region for talks with key Asian allies.

The Stalinist state's official news agency accused Washington of "driving the military situation on the Korean peninsula to the brink of a nuclear war" with plans for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.

Cheney is expected in Tokyo on Saturday on the first leg of an Asian tour that also takes him to China and South Korea.

North Korea described six-party talks held in Beijing in February as "fruitless," their harshest assessment so far of the meeting that brought together the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States.

"The US demand that the DPRK (North Korea) scrap its nuclear programme first is the main obstacle in the way of solving the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US," the Korean Central News Agency said in a commentary.

"It is a well-known fact that the second round of the six-way talks held in Beijing last February proved fruitless due to the US demand that the DPRK dismantle its nuclear program first."

Washington is demanding the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantling of North Korea's nuclear prorgammes, both plutonium and enriched uranium schemes, before it will offer concessions to the impoverished state.

Pyongyang denies having a uranium programme and has said it will freeze its plutonium weapons programme in return for simultaneous rewards from Washington.

A new round of six-party talks is expected before the end of June while working parties are supposed to be set up to resolve address contentious issues.

South Korea's foreign ministry said all participating countries were ready for working level talks apart from North korea, which has yet to give the go ahead.

In the commentary the North Korean news agency said Pyongyang had no choice but to boost its nuclear weapons drive in the face of US intransigence and its "moves to put the strategy of pre-emptive nuclear attack into practice."

Cheney's trip to Asia has been overshadowed by the deteriorating security situation in Iraq where insurgents are threatening to kill three Japanese hostages unless Tokyo pulls out troops from the war-torn region.

Seven South Koreans were released earlier Friday after also falling into the hands of insurgents.
 
Pictures of Torture

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/01/iraq.prisoner.reax/index.html

From CNN_

Aabs repulsed, furious over prison photos
Saturday, May 1, 2004 Posted: 2:22 PM EDT (1822 GMT)

(CNN) -- Graphic pictures showing the apparent abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. and British soldiers in Iraq have angered Arabs across the world, as well as U.S. and British officials.

The images of U.S. soldiers' actions were first broadcast Wednesday by U.S. TV network CBS and then by Al-Arabiya network, based in the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar-based Al-Jazeera on Friday.

Newspapers across the Arab world ran the photographs of U.S. soldiers humiliating hooded, naked detainees at Abu Ghraib prison on their front pages. Newspapers in Iraq did not carry the photos.

The U.S. military said six soldiers have been charged with criminal offenses for abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib prison, which was infamous under Saddam Hussein's reign.

"It would appear to us that if, in fact, the pictures are what they appear to be, they will face a court of law, a criminal court of law, and they will have to face a judge and a jury for their actions," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said.

With Arabs still reeling from the anger caused by the pictures aired initially by CBS, news of photographs showing British soldiers apparently abusing Iraqi prisoners, published in London's Daily Mirror newspaper on Saturday, spread through the Arab world.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said any abuse of Iraqi prisoners was "completely and totally unacceptable" and, if the photographs proved to be genuine, he would "condemn it utterly."

"We went to Iraq to get rid of that sort of thing, not to do it," Blair said.

"I think in fairness however, we should say, that there are thousands of British troops in Iraq doing a very brave, extraordinary job on behalf of the Iraqi people and on behalf of our country to make the country better," he added.

British Army commander Gen. Michael Jackson, speaking on behalf of Britain's minister of defense, said he was aware of the allegations and that the ministry has launched an investigation.

"If proven, not only is such appalling conduct clearly unlawful, but it also contravenes the British Army's high standards of conduct," Jackson said in a statement. (Full story)

The front page of Saturday's Daily Mirror shows a man dressed in fatigues urinating on a hooded and restrained person, with blood seeping from the hood. Among other photos inside the paper is one of a man ramming a gun into the groin of a hooded man.

As news of the photographs spread through the Arab world, there were warnings that it could severely damage relations between British troops and local people.


European newspapers featured pictures that purportedly show abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. jailers.
Ahmed al-Sheik, editor-in-chief of Arab TV news Al-Jazeera, said U.K. forces in Basra prided themselves on being able to patrol the streets without hard helmets or body armor.

But he said: "When these pictures come to be seen by the Iraqi public, I think things will change. These scenes are humiliating not only to the Iraqis, but to every Arab citizen around the world," the U.K. Press Association reported.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram called for a "swift full and in-depth inquiry" into what appeared to be "wholly unacceptable and damaging" misconduct.

And Liberal Democrats, who opposed the war, demanded that Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon appear before the Commons on Tuesday to make a statement.

Party leader Charles Kennedy said: "If true, such treatment of people is a total disgrace and a disservice to all that we stand for and to what needs to be achieved in Iraq. "This issue must be resolved as soon as possible before more damage is done to the reputation of our forces."

Anger in Arab capitals
A government-leaning newspaper in Egypt, Akhbar el-Yom, showed the photographs of U.S. soldiers posing by naked, hooded inmates, under the banner "The Scandal". Al-Wafd, an opposition paper, displayed similar photos beneath the words "The Shame," reported The Associated Press.

In Cairo, a spokesman for the Arab League said it had complained of abuses by U.S.-led forces after a mission to Iraq in December. The League feared more cases of ill-treatment were going unnoticed, he said.

"It is beyond the words of despicable acts and disgust that we feel at watching such photographs," Hossam Zaki told Reuters.

"The irony of it is that Saddam Hussein never really held a banner of spreading freedom...He was an autocratic ruler, a dictator, a repressive ruler, whatever you want to call him. It was expected to witness such atrocities under his rule," he said, according to the Reuters report.


In one of the images broadcast on "60 Minutes II" a person who appears to be a female soldier is seen with a hooded, naked prisoner.
"But to have the American soldiers supposedly bringing freedom and democracy and the American way of life to this part of the world, spreading this kind of shameful misconduct, that is an irony that to my taste is very sickening," he said, according to Reuters.

Zaki said the Arab League mission had heard similar accounts of abuse in Iraqi prisons, but did not have supporting evidence. But he said the mission had raised its concerns with the Iraqi Governing Council and the U.S. embassy on its return to Cairo.

"(It) is most likely that there are other cases that have not been photographed," he told Reuters.

"Shame on America. How can they convince us now that it is the bastion of democracy, freedoms and human rights? Why do we blame our dictators then?" asked Mustafa Saad, who was reading morning papers in a downtown Cairo cafe, the A.P. reported.

President Bush Friday expressed disgust at the images, saying the apparent mistreatment of the Iraqi prisoners "does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America." (Full story)

Mohammed Hassan Taha, an editor at Nile Sports News Television, said Arabs should not allow the matter to pass quietly, according to the AP dispatch. "This is not humiliation of Iraqis, it is humiliation of all Arabs," said Taha, while buying a newspaper with the photos on its cover.

Dara Nor al-Din, a former judge and member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, said the torture of prisoners and detainees or showing them naked contradicts principles of human rights.

"We used to criticize Saddam's regime regarding the beating of detained people, so why should we accept to repeat the same tragedy. This is not acceptable," Nor al-Din told AP.

At Baghdad's Mustansiriyah University, student Ahmad Taher, 24, asked, "Is this the way the Americans treat prisoners?"

"Americans claim that they respect freedom and democracy, but only in their country," Taher, 24, added.

Hussein al-Saeedi, spokesman for Kuwait's al-Salaf radical Islamic group, said the images "make every sensible person doubt all the principles Western democracies are offering" and show the need for an end to the U.S. occupation.

"America justified its invasion of Iraq by saying the country was under a dictatorship. Unfortunately, Americans are now torturing the Iraqi people in the same place Saddam tortured them," he said.

In Syria, Damascus merchant Sahban Alawi, 45, asked "what's the difference between them and Saddam Hussein? They are doing to Iraq more than what he did."

Iraqis saw the images of abuse via television. Iraq's major newspapers, including those at odds with the U.S.-led occupation, did not publish the photographs, which have been splashed across the pages of Saturday's European publications.

"I can't describe what I felt when I saw those scenes; they revolted me and proved the barbarity of the occupation forces," said Mohammad Salman, a traffic policeman, Reuters reported. "What's the difference between them and Saddam? They are finishing what he started," he said.
 
An important step, is there a light at the end of the tunnel (and possibly not a train)?

Iraqi forces patrolling Fallujah
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/01/iraq.main/index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Soldiers from the newly formed Iraqi Army's Fallujah Brigade are conducting patrols as part of the effort to end the standoff with insurgents in the city, a Marine commander said on Saturday.

"We have assigned the Iraqi battalion to our least-engaged sector until they can get their feet on deck, absorb the weapons and equipment that we are passing their way and prepare for the next phase of the operation," Marine Lt. Gen. Jim Conway said.

They assumed control of four checkpoints Friday and have started patrolling, he said.

Hundreds of families who had left Fallujah during the fierce fighting have started to return on Saturday after they heard the Iraqi force would join the effort to control violence, The Associated Press reported.

Nearly a third of Fallujah's 200,000 people fled the fighting.

Crowds of people carrying bundles of possessions gathered at a checkpoint on Saturday, waiting for Marines and members of the new Iraqi brigade to allow them through, the AP reported.

Troops from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force are remaining in and around Fallujah but there is "some realignment" of forces.

Between 900 and 1,100 soldiers are expected to join the 1st Battalion of the Iraqi Army's Fallujah Brigade.

Many of them are ex-Iraqi soldiers from Fallujah and the surrounding region. Conway said some may even have fought against Marines at the beginning of the siege last month.

There has been a basic intelligence vetting of the generals and leaders of this new force. He said, however, no one in the force is to have "blood on their hands."

"Most of these guys may not be squeaky clean, but they're pretty clean," Conway said.

"The men understand the sense of urgency in stabilizing Fallujah and are willing to share in the danger in making that happen," Conway said. "We have every reason to believe that they will be successful here and will be instrumental in helping to shape the future or their country."

As for the insurgents, Conway stressed "there is no peace deal even on the table for those who violently oppose a free and democratic Iraq."

Discussions have been going on in Fallujah between coalition and Iraqi authorities since mid-April.
 
Al Jazeera mad about the Iraqi prisoner pictures? Good...they don't give a damn about showing pictures of dead Americans on tv. So why should we give a damn?

Anyhow, there is a lot of talk about us pulling out. How about we give Saddam back the keys to his palaces, put him back in power, and leave?

Or why don't we just leave as it is, and cause even more devastation there.

Patience is a virtue people.
 
Paladin Solo said:
Al Jazeera mad about the Iraqi prisoner pictures? Good...they don't give a damn about showing pictures of dead Americans on tv. So why should we give a damn?
Click to expand...
Why should we care about Coalition troops torturing prisoners?
Geee... Let me think... :roll:
 
it's a bit different showing pictures of dead soldiers or tortured iraq prisoner. We know the soldiers were soldiers, therefore they were sent to fight. Then we have a guy being tortured while alive and we don't know anything about him?

Perhaps you should care, since it's wrong. Or perhaps you shouldn't care, since it's war. Le shrugge.
 
Paladin- I think the problem is one of standards- whose standards do you wish to live by? Theirs or yours? This is a question of character.

If a bunch of Iraqi resisters hang up a dead body, run it through the street and descreate it, their a bunch of barbarious uncivilized fucks.

But if we start acting that way, then we become like them. Frankly, I don't want us to go there.
 
I was just saying, they cry justice, or jihaad, when we fuck up, or when we make them mad, but it's totally ok for them to make us mad? Anyone see the hypocracy here? I know it's wrong, but frankly, I don't care anymore. Trying to be the nice guy in a hostile environment gets on my nerves. People left and right crying vietnam, others yelling jihaad, it's really pissing me off. If you want my attention, my sympathy, try acting a bit civil. Take Martin Luther King Jr., for example, now he was smart. My point being, if something is wrong, notify us about it, don't try and kill us for every mistake we make. If we still wrong you once you bring that to our attention, then, of course, revolt is the only option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top