Biden & Graham Debate Iraq: 1/7/07 on Meet the Press

[turbo]

I'll be interested to see what punishment the US gov't demands for Israel flouting last August's UN resolution.

Can you spell "nothing"? The US will demand no sanctions and will veto any proposed sanctions, just like always. Opposing Israeli interests is equivalent to touching the "third rail" in US politics. There is no Israeli military action that cannot be "justified" by some unrelated minor provocation, even if it involves significant loss of civilian life.

 

[Astronuc]

September 19, 2007
Migration Reshapes Iraq’s Sectarian Landscape
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/world/middleeast/19displaced.html
By JAMES GLANZ and ALISSA J. RUBIN

BAGHDAD, Sept. 18 — A vast internal migration is radically reshaping Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian landscape, according to new data collected by thousands of relief workers, but displacement in the most populous and mixed areas is surprisingly complex, suggesting that partitioning the country into semiautonomous Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish enclaves would not be easy.

The migration data, which are expected to be released this week by the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization but were given in advance to The New York Times, indicate that in Baghdad alone there are now nearly 170,000 families, accounting for almost a million people, that have fled their homes in search of security, shelter, water, electricity, functioning schools or jobs to support their families.

The figures show that many families move twice, three times or more, first fleeing immediate danger and then making more considered calculations based on the availability of city services or schools for their children. Finding neighbors of their own sect is just one of those considerations.

Over all, the patterns suggest that despite the ethnic and sectarian animosity that has gripped the country, at least some Iraqis would rather continue to live in mixed communities.

The Red Crescent compiled the figures from reports filed as recently as the end of August by tens of thousands of relief workers scattered across all parts of Iraq who are straining to provide aid for an estimated 280,000 families swept up nationwide in an enormous and complex migration.

This may be the unfortunate legacy of the Bush administration and it will be a sore spot to many Iraqis and many in the Middle East for decades to come. Of course, the US will get the blame.

I was listening to interviews with young men in Jordan, and they are angry at the US. Al Qaida and other groups are using that anger to encourage a continuing jihad against the west, although the focus seems to be on the US.

 

[turbo]

It's unfortunate that so many Iraqis are displaced, and even more unfortunate for those who cannot leave Iraq, because many of the people who left were doctors, engineers, teachers, and other professionals whose services are badly needed in Iraq, but left to keep their families safe. The impact of the loss of people with skills that are valuable to health care, education, and construction, design, and maintenance of infrastructure is probably impossible to gauge accurately, but it's sure to be significant. For instance, when doctors flee a country in which casualties are on the rise, the survivability of the victims has to be severely reduced, and treatment options limited.

 

[baywax]

September 19, 2007
Migration Reshapes Iraq’s Sectarian Landscape
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/world/middleeast/19displaced.html
By JAMES GLANZ and ALISSA J. RUBIN

This may be the unfortunate legacy of the Bush administration and it will be a sore spot to many Iraqis and many in the Middle East for decades to come. Of course, the US will get the blame.

I was listening to interviews with young men in Jordan, and they are angry at the US. Al Qaida and other groups are using that anger to encourage a continuing jihad against the west, although the focus seems to be on the US.

None of this sounds very democratic. Segregation died out around 40 years ago, in most democratic states. I thought one of the main objectives and selling points to many of the subscribing volunteers invading Iraq was to introduce democracy. Not happening.

 

[Astronuc]

About 2 million Iraqis have fled the country to neighboring countries, and there are about 2 million Iraqis who are internally displaced. The US has admitted only several hundred.

In February, the State Department said that as many as 7,000 Iraqi refugees who are the most vulnerable would be allowed into the United States. They include those with health problems, single moms and those targeted because they helped the U.S. government. To date, only about 850 have arrived.

from -
Iraqi Refugees Begin to Arrive in Atlanta
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14360698

Obstacles Limit Flow of Iraqis into United States http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14218089

 

[BobG]

About 2 million Iraqis have fled the country to neighboring countries, and there are about 2 million Iraqis who are internally displaced. The US has admitted only several hundred.

from -
Iraqi Refugees Begin to Arrive in Atlanta
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14360698

Obstacles Limit Flow of Iraqis into United States http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14218089

I would think one obstacle would be the huge potential for irony if a disgruntled Iraqi were accidently admitted and committed some act of terrorism. The oft repeated phrase, "If we leave Iraq, then the terrorists will follow us home", would lose a lot of its appeal.

Then again, the Bush administration could just stop using the phrase. It's kind of a dumb slogan, anyway.

 

[edward]

This is totally disgusting.

Kreisher CongressDaily September 21, 2007 Members of the House Armed Services Committee said Thursday they were saddened and appalled at the number of military officers and civilian officials implicated in as much as $6 billion in contract fraud in Iraq and by the mismanagement that left 190,000 weapons intended for Iraqi security forces unaccounted for.
Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., opened a hearing on incidents of bribery and fraud that occurred in a major contracting office in Kuwait by saying they "were so severe that I fear they represent a culture of corruption," a term repeated by others.

It is about time some serious investigations are done and there should be no more hiding behind big money and executive privilege.

But a panel of senior defense acquisition and investigative officials attributed the rampant errors and abuse in contracting -- which have resulted in 10 convictions, 78 criminal indictments and audits into $88 billion in questionable contracts -- on lack of controls, poor leadership and an undermanned and untrained work force operating in a combat zone.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38097&dcn=todaysnews

This is almost identical to the excuse Haliburton used to duck out from under the fact that they were overcharging for fuel brought in form Kuwait several years ago.


Feds target Blackwater in weapons probe:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA illegally smuggled into Iraq weapons that may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, officials said Friday.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Raleigh, N.C., is handling the investigation with help from Pentagon and State Department auditors, who have concluded there is enough evidence to file charges, the officials told The Associated Press. Blackwater is based in Moyock, N.C.

The U.S. attorney for the eastern district of North Carolina, George Holding, and a spokeswoman for Blackwater did not return calls seeking comment Friday. Pentagon and State Department spokesmen declined to comment.

Officials with knowledge of the case said it is active, although at an early stage. They spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, which has heightened since 11 Iraqis were killed Sunday in a shooting involving Blackwater contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5bT6zBuFB23rj9mMRTJbqC0xHYg

This all is greed driven, but I think that it was partly encouraged by the supposed "quick in and quick out" that the war was supposed to be. It is like a take the money and run scenario that got got bogged down when the war did.

 

[Astronuc]

Blackwater Tops All Firms in Iraq in Shooting Rate
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/world/middleeast/27contractor.html
By JOHN M. BRODER and JAMES RISEN, NY Times, September 27, 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The American security contractor Blackwater USA has been involved in a far higher rate of shootings while guarding American diplomats in Iraq than other security firms providing similar services to the State Department, according to Bush administration officials and industry officials.

Blackwater is now the focus of investigations in both Baghdad and Washington over a Sept. 16 shooting in which at least 11 Iraqis were killed. Beyond that episode, the company has been involved in cases in which its personnel fired weapons while guarding State Department officials in Iraq at least twice as often per convoy mission as security guards working for other American security firms, the officials said.

The disclosure came as the Pentagon said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had sent a team of officials to Iraq to get answers to questions about the use of American security contractors there.

The State Department keeps reports on each case in which weapons were fired by security personnel guarding American diplomats in Iraq. Officials familiar with the internal State Department reports would not provide the actual statistics, but they indicated that the records showed that Blackwater personnel were involved in dozens of episodes in which they had resorted to force.

The officials said that Blackwater’s incident rate was at least twice that recorded by employees of DynCorp International and Triple Canopy, the two other United States-based security firms that have been contracted by the State Department to provide security for diplomats and other senior civilians in Iraq.

But the incidents suggest a reckless disregard for civilians/non-combatants, and they are certainly costing the US good will among Iraqis. I certainly would not be pleased with soldiers riding up and down the street outside waving guns and occasionally shooting my neighbors.

 

[turbo]

Tom Brokaw interviewed Michael Bloomberg yesterday, who compared the Iraq insurgency to the American revolution, only this time WE are the British, with the highly-trained regimented troops, and the Iraqi insurgents are playing the role of the colonial patriots trying to rid themselves of a foreign occupation.

Unfortunately, the mayor's grasp of history is either not too good or he was misinterpreted or both.

Bloomberg said the comparison occurred to him when he visited his mother recently and was driving through Lexington, Mass., where a scrubby group of farmers rose up against a well-trained militia more than 200 years ago.

That "scrubby group of farmers" included men of all professions, and many of them were seasoned veterans. They had been required to form militias to come to the defense of the King's interests in the New World, and many had taken part in military expeditions against the French in the Hudson valley and in Nova Scotia. Some of the early battles in the conflict were fought as these militia-men defended their stores of arms and ammunition from confiscation by the British troops. The milita-men were the backbone of the continental army, and they were fighting professional soldiers from England and Germany.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262007/news/regionalnews/mike__iraq_is_like_1776.htm

 

[edward]

Ironically those Iraqi refugees who are leaving the country are the people most needed to rebuild Iraq's society.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09282007/watch3.html

 

[edward]

Was their a cover-up of the contractor fraud in Iraq? It appears that there was and it was done at the highest levels. The intention was apparently to protect the Bush administration from political embarrassment.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09282007/watch2.html

 

[Astronuc]

Was their a cover-up of the contractor fraud in Iraq? It appears that there was and it was done at the highest levels. The intention was apparently to protect the Bush administration from political embarrassment.

And then there is -

Blackwater's Prince Has GOP, Christian Group Ties
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14659780

NPR.org, September 25, 2007 · With more than $800 million in contracts, Blackwater USA, led by Erik Prince, is among the biggest companies providing armed guards for U.S. officials and government contractors in Iraq.

Prince, the heir to a Michigan auto-parts fortune, has close ties to the Republican Party and conservative Christian groups. He began his career with a stint as an officer in the U.S. Navy SEALs, and co-founded Blackwater in 1997 with other former commandos. His family's wealth made it possible for the then 27-year-old Prince to fund the Blackwater start-up with his own money.

Prince and his firm have drawn scrutiny from members of Congress after Blackwater guards were accused of opening fire on civilians in Baghdad in an incident that left at least nine people dead.

Report: Bush Discussed War Weeks Before it Began
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14798235

Nothing new there.

 

[chemisttree]

Report: Bush Discussed War Weeks Before it Began
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14798235

Nothing new there.

Do you think it is unusual that a transcript of a private conversation was penned in the first place? Do you think that Bush was sitting down with the Spanish PM dictating to a secretary? Or was a tape made? Why not release the tape itself? It sounds fishy...

 

[Astronuc]

From Errand to Fatal Shot to Hail of Fire to 17 Deaths
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/world/middleeast/03firefight.html
By JAMES GLANZ and ALISSA J. RUBIN

BAGHDAD, Oct. 2 — It started out as a family errand: Ahmed Haithem Ahmed was driving his mother, Mohassin, to pick up his father from the hospital where he worked as a pathologist. As they approached Nisour Square at midday on Sept. 16, they did not know that a bomb had gone off nearby or that a convoy of four armored vehicles carrying Blackwater guards armed with automatic rifles was approaching.

Moments later a bullet tore through Mr. Ahmed’s head, he slumped, and the car rolled forward. Then Blackwater guards responded with a barrage of gunfire and explosive weapons, leaving 17 dead and 24 wounded — a higher toll than previously thought, according to Iraqi investigators.

Interviews with 12 Iraqi witnesses, several Iraqi investigators and an American official familiar with an American investigation of the shootings offer new insights into the gravity of the episode in Nisour Square. And they are difficult to square with the explanation offered initially by Blackwater officials that their guards were responding proportionately to an attack on the streets around the square.

The new details include these:

¶A deadly cascade of events began when a single bullet apparently fired by a Blackwater guard killed an Iraqi man whose weight probably remained on the accelerator and propelled the car forward as the passenger, the man’s mother, clutched him and screamed.

¶The car continued to roll toward the convoy, which responded with an intense barrage of gunfire in several directions, striking Iraqis who were desperately trying to flee.

¶Minutes after that shooting stopped, a Blackwater convoy — possibly the same one — moved north from the square and opened fire on another line of traffic a few hundred yards away, in a previously unreported separate shooting, investigators and several witnesses say.

But questions emerge from accounts of the earliest moments of the shooting in Nisour Square.

The car in which the first people were killed did not begin to closely approach the Blackwater convoy until the Iraqi driver had been shot in the head and lost control of his vehicle. Not one witness heard or saw any gunfire coming from Iraqis around the square. And following a short initial burst of bullets, the Blackwater guards unleashed an overwhelming barrage of gunfire even as Iraqis were turning their cars around and attempting to flee.

As the gunfire continued, at least one of the Blackwater guards began screaming, “No! No! No!” and gesturing to his colleagues to stop shooting, according to an Iraqi lawyer who was stuck in traffic and was shot in the back as he tried to flee. The account of the struggle among the Blackwater guards corroborates preliminary findings of the American investigation.

. . . .

So it would appear that the only people firing were Blackwater mercenaries.

This not how to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis.

This is one more reason why the US should not be in Iraq.

 

[edward]

What's wrong with this story

Blackwater to Guard FBI

WASHINGTON - When a team of FBI agents lands in Baghdad this week to probe Blackwater security contractors for murder, it will be protected by bodyguards from the very same firm, the Daily News has learned.

Half a dozen FBI criminal investigators based in Washington are scheduled to travel to Iraq to gather evidence and interview witnesses about a Sept. 16 shooting spree that left at least 11 Iraqi civilians dead.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/03/2007-10-03_blackwater_to_guard_fbi_team_probing_it-2.html

 

[Astronuc]

Another example of what not to do.

2 Iraqi Women Killed in Shooting by Security Convoy
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/world/middleeast/10iraq.html
By ANDREW E. KRAMER and JAMES GLANZ

BAGHDAD, Oct. 9 — Two women died here on Tuesday when their white Oldsmobile was riddled by automatic gunfire from guards for a private security company, just weeks after a shooting by another company strained relations between the United States and Iraq.

The guards involved in the Tuesday shooting were working for an Australian-run security company. But the people they were assigned to protect work under the same United States government agency whose security guards sprayed bullets across a crowded Baghdad square on Sept. 16, an episode that caused an uproar among Iraqi officials and is still being investigated by the United States.

In the Tuesday shooting, as many as 40 bullets struck the car, killing the driver and the woman in the front seat on the passenger side. A woman and a boy in the back seat survived, according to witnesses and local police officials in the Karada neighborhood, where the shooting took place on a boulevard lined with appliance stores, tea shops and money changers.

American government officials said the guards had been hired to protect financial and policy experts working for an organization under contract with the United States Agency for International Development, a quasi-independent State Department agency that does extensive aid work in Iraq.

The organization, RTI International, is in Iraq to carry out what is ultimately a State Department effort to improve local government and democratic institutions. But a Bush administration official said the State Department bore no responsibility for overseeing RTI’s security operations.

Then who does bear responsibility for the killing of innocent people. Who gave authority and immunity to Blackwater and RTI to operate in Iraq? Who is paying these mercenaries?

 

[turbo]

Then who does bear responsibility for the killing of innocent people. Who gave authority and immunity to Blackwater and RTI to operate in Iraq? Who is paying these mercenaries?

I have another question: If our government can afford to pay over $400,000/year/mercenary, why cannot we afford to train our own military to operate security details? Maybe they'd even be disciplined and sane enough not to kill innocent civilians indiscriminately. Just a thought.

 

[baywax]

I have another question: If our government can afford to pay over $400,000/year/mercenary, why cannot we afford to train our own military to operate security details? Maybe they'd even be disciplined and sane enough not to kill innocent civilians indiscriminately. Just a thought.

I think we have to realize the amount of confusion, paranoia, danger and car bombs that are going on in what used to be a pretty peaceful place (unless you happened to be against Saddam or you were on the soccer team when it lost). So, cars have become these anonymous potential threats to life, no matter who is driving them or is a passenger. You may be right that a trained military person might react with better judgement than a trained mercenary person however, the record seems to go against your theory.

Just one example:

Three US soldiers charged with murdering Iraqi prisoners

Three US troops have been charged with murder for shooting three Iraqi prisoners and threatening to kill a fellow soldier who wanted to report the incident, the Pentagon said yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1801415,00.html

 

[baywax]

Afghans crack down on private security

The practice of using foreign private security firms is losing support after the results of this investigation in Afghanistan. Its ironic that a country can excercise the right to expell foreign private security while allowing foreign military activities in their midst.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_as/afghan_contractors

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sanchez really hammered it today.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their "lust for power."

Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, called the Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight," for which he said the Bush administration, the State Department and Congress all share blame.

Sanchez told a group of military reporters in Arlington, Virginia, on Friday that such dereliction of duty by a military officer would mean immediate dismissal or court martial, but the politicians have not been held accountable.

He said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could never achieve on its own.

Still, he said, the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without causing chaos that would have global implications. [continued]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html

Sour grapes or not, he is absolutely right about everything up to the last point, and I'm afraid that he may be right about that one too.

 

[turbo]

Why is it that US commanders cannot/will not object to the machinations of politicians until they're retired? Is it to protect their pensions? How can they be silent as they watch the men and women under their command be be sacrificed for the sake of oil, political power, and partisanship? At some point, don't these commanders have a duty to the US citizens that transcends their loyalty to the president?

 

[edward]

Why is it that US commanders cannot/will not object to the machinations of politicians until they're retired? Is it to protect their pensions? How can they be silent as they watch the men and women under their command be be sacrificed for the sake of oil, political power, and partisanship? At some point, don't these commanders have a duty to the US citizens that transcends their loyalty to the president?

Most military commanders maintain their loyalty to the commander in chief. It is a career ending decision to speak out.

ON THE OTHER HAND:
General Sanchez has recently spoken out about Iraq. He has stated that: "America is living a nightmare with no end in sight" .

Ricardo Sanchez, retired US General, who commanded US troops in Iraq has launched a verbal assault against the Bush administration.

http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=7210593&nav=2CSf

 

[edward]

Sanchez was speaking before the military press last week when he unloaded on almost everyone.
Ironically it hasn't made the network news to a great degree.

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=49460

I happened to catch it yesterday on C Span. He really was angry with the Military Press, saying at one point that some of them feed from a hog trough.

He then started to fire on the Bush administration and congressional involvement in Iraq.

This really needs to be on the network news other than just a short clip on CNN and a diversionary tactic by Fox.

 

[Astronuc]

Still, he said, the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without causing chaos that would have global implications.

The status quo in Iraq IS chaos that HAS global implications - NOW and for a long time to come.

Iraq is like a Bush fire out of control.

Bush's use of violence has become self-perpetuating, and if he had had a shred of intelligence he should have known that. But then again, Bush and his allies are in total denial of just about everything. Bush has taken delusional thinking, which Reagan developed to a new art, to even greater levels than Reagan.

 

[BobG]

Why is it that US commanders cannot/will not object to the machinations of politicians until they're retired? Is it to protect their pensions? How can they be silent as they watch the men and women under their command be be sacrificed for the sake of oil, political power, and partisanship? At some point, don't these commanders have a duty to the US citizens that transcends their loyalty to the president?

The alternative, a military that decides the civilian commander in chief is a dangerous idiot that shouldn't be listened to, hasn't worked out so well in many countries.

The idea of maintaining a military that follows the civilian leadership no matter what is a much safer idea. Bad civilian leadership eventually gets replaced through elections and the leaders getting tossed out have no heavy artillery. It would be much harder to deal with an armed military if they decide they know how to run country better than the civilian leadership.

 

[turbo]

I wasn't suggesting a coup, BobG. It would be nice to see some openness and honesty, though. What would have happened if our military commanders had said "we don't have enough resources to pull this off", "we need to have a diplomatic effort running parallel to the military occupation", etc. You know, the kind of stuff they feel free to say after they retire. The president may be commander-in-chief, but no president is infallible, and when the president is committed to sacrificing our soldiers in an open-ended military campaign, the generals in the field should show some degree of loyalty and responsibility to the men and women who are paying the price.

 

[baywax]

Maybe its a good idea to let someone else help "re-build" Iraq.

"Iraqi Contracts With Iran and China Concern U.S."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/world/middleeast/18grid.html?ref=todayspaper

 

[edward]

Maybe its a good idea to let someone else help "re-build" Iraq.

"Iraqi Contracts With Iran and China Concern U.S."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/world/middleeast/18grid.html?ref=todayspaper

From the link:

Iraq has agreed to award $1.1 billion in contracts to Iranian and Chinese companies to build a pair of enormous power plants, the Iraqi electricity minister said Tuesday. Word of the project prompted serious concerns among American military officials, who fear that Iranian commercial investments can mask military activities at a time of heightened tension with Iran.

Where is Iraq getting the money?? My best guess would be China.

OOPS at the bottom of the article it states that the loans will come from Iran and the Chinese will do the building. LOL so where is Iran getting the money? Probably from China.

 

[baywax]

From the link:
Where is Iraq getting the money?? My best guess would be China.

OOPS at the bottom of the article it states that the loans will come from Iran and the Chinese will do the building. LOL so where is Iran getting the money? Probably from China.

Or from selling oil at EU dollar value. Imagine how China felt when good old America occupied Iraq. They must "fear that American commercial investments can mask military activities"... except there is no masking of military activity. What, exactly, 150,000 troops is doing is still unclear, to me.

 

[BobG]

I wasn't suggesting a coup, BobG. It would be nice to see some openness and honesty, though. What would have happened if our military commanders had said "we don't have enough resources to pull this off", "we need to have a diplomatic effort running parallel to the military occupation", etc. You know, the kind of stuff they feel free to say after they retire. The president may be commander-in-chief, but no president is infallible, and when the president is committed to sacrificing our soldiers in an open-ended military campaign, the generals in the field should show some degree of loyalty and responsibility to the men and women who are paying the price.

There's many that feel they shouldn't comment on policy even years after they retire. It's only a few that buck tradition and speak out publicly regardless of what they may or may not have said inside the Pentagon. http://www.slate.com/id/2176122/nav/tap2/ comments on the problems of their position, but I don't think there's a consensus on the right way to handle some of the situations they faced under Rumsfeld.

 

[Astronuc]

America's Other Army
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1672792,00.html

Close to midnight last Christmas Eve, a Blackwater security contractor named Andrew Moonen emerged from a boozy party in Baghdad's Green Zone and took a wrong turn on the way back to his hooch. There is as yet no satisfactory explanation for what happened next. An Iraqi guard named Raheem Khalif, who was protecting the compound of Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi, was fatally shot three times. TIME interviewed three Iraqi guards who were on duty that night and reviewed two signed witness statements: all say the shooter was a white male, wearing an ID badge typically used by security contractors. The day after the shooting, Moonen was fired by Blackwater and flown out of Iraq. His name was not directly linked to the incident until earlier this month, when a Seattle lawyer told the New York Times he was representing Moonen, 27, a former Army paratrooper, in connection with the investigation into the shooting.

The killing of Khalif barely registered outside the Green Zone. For Iraqis, it was just another in a long series of stories — stretching back to the early days of the U.S. occupation — about how private security contractors seem to operate with impunity in their country. Brought into Iraq because an undermanned U.S. military couldn't guard vital facilities and top American officials, contractors were armed with a decree by U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer that made them practically exempt from prosecution under Iraq law. They quickly earned a reputation as cowboys, the kind that shoot first and never have to answer any questions afterward. As the number of contractors has grown, so has the volume and frequency of Iraqi complaints. A report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that Blackwater alone has been involved in 195 "escalation of force" incidents since early 2005.

But these went largely unnoticed outside Iraq until Sept. 16, when a Blackwater security convoy shot and killed 17 civilians at a major traffic intersection in western Baghdad. The company claimed its men were responding to an attack on the convoy, but an investigation by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior the week of the shooting said the contractors had fired first. The incident sparked furor in the U.S., where it was seized upon by Bush Administration critics as yet more proof of botched planning of the Iraq war and the consequence of outsourcing too many military tasks.

And one wonders why the US is failing in Iraq.

 

[novaa77]

What to do about Iraq?

What ever is done now, the outcome will only be tragic... basicly a choice between the fire and the frying pan.

If the troops pull out there is going to be slaughter on an unprecedented scale, if the troops remain there is nothing much to be achived, other than keeping two groups of people who are hell bent on killing each other, apart. This is a never ending circle of violence..

What must be done is to learn from this lesson. It is upto the American people to make sure that this mistake is not repeated in Iran or any where else in the world for that matter. War is never the solution, only a temporary ending.

But ofcourse this war was never about democracy for the Iraqi people nor about WMDs, it is about OIL.

And now were are being led to believe that a nuclear Iran will be a threat to world peace, which is as big a load of bull as the WMD story.

Why dosen't the American government have an issue with nuclear arms in Pakistan or India or Israel, these are some of the most volitile areas on the planet.

It would be naive to believe that these operation in the Gulf are for anything else other than oil. It is about installing puppet governments in the entire Middle East just as in Saudi and Kuwait and gain control over this oil producing region. Imagine what could be done if anyone particular country had complete control on the majority of the worlds oil supply... the possibilities are endless...

 

[BobG]

I would be surprised if the US government didn't have at least a few issues with Pakistan having nuclear weapons, but it's hard to prevent it after the fact. Pakistan doesn't have the most stable government and it's hard to tell what will follow Musharraf when he eventually leaves power.

Iran having nuclear weapons would be a threat to world peace in a general sense, although a threat to peace in the Middle East might be a more accurate assessment. If you can't punish a country for meddling into its neighbor's affairs, then there's an increased risk that country will meddle in its neighbor's affairs. "Imagine what could be done if anyone particular country had complete control on the majority of the worlds oil supply... the possibilities are endless..."

Iran hasn't invaded other countries, so the risk should probably be put into perspective, but it was involved in a fairly long war with one of its neighbors (Iraq) over the oil rich province of Khuzestan. To be fair, it was Iraq that invaded Iran; not Iran that started the war. Just about all wars in the Middle East are over oil, not just the US wars in the Middle East.

 

[Art]

I'd have thought if Iran had nuclear weapons it would make war in the ME less likely. If the US and USSR had not both had nuclear weapons I think the cold war would have become a hot one very quickly and the same is likely true of the ME. The same is true of India and Pakistan who used to go to war with each other at the drop of a hat. Now they both have nuclear weapons they are far more inclined towards diplomacy than previously when the stakes were not so high.

Israel wouldn't attack a country which possessed nuclear weapons and neither would those countries attack Israel because of the principle of mutually assured destruction. Likewise and for much the same reasons countries such as the US would be far less likely to pursue an aggressive foreign policy in the area as bullying doesn't work when the victim can hurt you nearly as much as you can hurt him.

 

[BobG]

I'd have thought if Iran had nuclear weapons it would make war in the ME less likely. If the US and USSR had not both had nuclear weapons I think the cold war would have become a hot one very quickly and the same is likely true of the ME. The same is true of India and Pakistan who used to go to war with each other at the drop of a hat. Now they both have nuclear weapons they are far more inclined towards diplomacy than previously when the stakes were not so high.

Israel wouldn't attack a country which possessed nuclear weapons and neither would those countries attack Israel because of the principle of mutually assured destruction. Likewise and for much the same reasons countries such as the US would be far less likely to pursue an aggressive foreign policy in the area as bullying doesn't work when the victim can hurt you nearly as much as you can hurt him.

The cold war didn't stop hot wars completely. The USSR invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. The US invaded Korea and Viet Nam. Being nuclear powers just meant the other side couldn't do much except root (plus maybe give some logistical support) for the underdog.

The US put together a multi-national coalition to knock Iraq out of Kuwait. I don't think the US would get many Middle East allies to punish Iran for invading a Middle East nation if Iran had nuclear weapons (yeah, at this point, the US wouldn't get many Middle East allies, anyway). You'd be adding a new bully to the mix instead of taking one away.

Iran definitely is interested in influencing events in the Middle East region. Thinking they'll make less mistakes than the US-USSR has is pretty optimistic. They might know the Middle East region better than the USSR-US understood the countries they meddled in, but they could also botch things even worse than the USSR-US ever did.

Iran with nuclear weapons is a huge question mark and there's no way to know how they'll use the impunity that nuclear weapons would bring them. Controlling the Middle East wouldn't exactly be controlling the world's oil supply since there's oil in Africa, South America, Russia, etc, but they'd definitely turn into one of the world's major players.