| Author |
Message |
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
 Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:16 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | 7,000 people are running in tonight's elections,, WHICH HAVE BEGUN!
Freedom is on the march, as they vote on their leaders under THEIR constitution which THEY developed.
And some of you want us to pull out now, if not in the next couple months? I think not!
That's like baking a cake and stopping it in mid-way, not even thinking about putting the icing on.
Yeah, look at what's going on today. I hope it's a success, and suspect it to be as such. Let's watch democracy in action, my friends! It's a good day for freedom!  |
Good for them. I wish though, that it could have been done without less bloodshed that even still is prevelant.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:18 pm |
|
Well at least you acknowledge that that's a good thing, even though you disagree with the means. I just hope that you have the sanity to support our troops staying in there as long as necessary  
Anyways, on election news. Things went GREAT! Far better than expected!
A friend of mine--a black Republican --asked me what my guess for the turnout would be. I guessed 60% registered voter turnout, with about 12 million coming out. It beat even my expectations with likely FIFTEEN million out of TWENTY-FIVE million. 70%, no matter what--10% more than expected!
And the IRAQIS dealt with security for the elections, mind you
And so I say to you liberals who claim that we went in there and forced our form of government upon them and they don't want anything to change--that gets the 2005 Biggest Load of Crap award. It's a HISTORIC day--it's a GREAT day. And to denounce it, or ignore it, or say that it means little, as many of the prominent Democrats are saying, is just disgusting and wrong. We are WINNING--and not only the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, but on the battlefront. I forsee great things in the future. Look, Iraq is really accepting Democracy! Good for them! Now, let us stay the course until we are ready to leave.
| Quote: | Vote Counting Begins in Historic Iraq Elections
BAGHDAD, Iraq � Up to 15 million Iraqis � including large numbers of Sunnis, who boycotted the January elections � voted in historic parliamentary elections Thursday to establish a permanent democratic government amid only scattered violence.
The polls stayed open one hour later, until 6 p.m. local time (10 a.m. EST), because of such high turnout. Long lines were reported in some precincts, said commission official Munthur Abdelamir, some of which wrapped around neighborhood blocks. The commission said results will be announced within two weeks.
Policemen guarding a polling place in eastern Baghdad's Zayouna neighborhood fired shots in the air to celebrate the end of voting there.
If all goes well, U.S. officials hope the vote will set the stage for a troop reduction in that country.
"We see a set of circumstances with the elections that we can begin to downsize forces and reduce, significantly, the size of our forces in the aftermath of the election," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told FOX News. "It can be seen as a calendar of events leading to � U.S. withdrawal."
To the surprise of coalition forces, violence in Iraq was much lighter than expected; the smattering of attacks didn't appear to discourage Iraqis, some of whom turned out wrapped in their country's flag on a sunny day and afterward displayed a purple ink-stained index finger � a mark to guard against multiple voting.
The high voter turnout was due, in part, to large numbers of Sunni Arabs showing up at some of the country's 33,000 polling stations; many Sunnis boycotted elections earlier this year. Many Iraqis had waited until the last minute to vote, to make sure the security situation was under control before they left their homes for the polls.
An imam in Ramadi was heard over a mosque loudspeaker saying: "God will bless you with a great life if you go out and vote. This is your last chance to vote."
Iraqis voted in January to elect the current interim government that drafted the Iraqi constitution, which was approved in October. Strong turnout in Sunni Arab areas this time around bolstered hopes of U.S. and Iraqi officials that more Sunni participation and representation in the government could help quash the insurgency; Sunni Arabs make up the backbone of the insurgency in Iraq.
"One of the most memorable things I saw were families, mothers and fathers taking their children to the polling stations. It was clear everyone knew what was at stake here and I think it was quite successful," USAID Mission Director Dawn Liberi told FOX News from Baghdad. "All the polls show Iraqis think democracy is the No. 1 priority for them � they want to get on with their lives, they don't want to be bombed, they don't want to be hostages to an insurgency."
U.S. officials also say the government need to be able to reconcile Iraq's disparate groups. The Americans also want to avoid protracted negotiations to choose a new prime minister and cabinet � a process that dragged on for three months after the last vote.
President Bush said Thursday's voting in Iraq was "a major step forward" in establishing a democratic ally for the United States in the Middle East and moving toward the day when American troops can come home.
Bush, speaking alongside six young Iraqis whose purple-stained fingers signified that they had voted in their country's parliamentary elections in the United States, said he was happy to see the turnout, particularly among the Sunnis, even without final tabulations.
"This is a major step forward in achieving our objective," Bush said.
'Our Revenge on Saddam'
Some Iraqis said Thursday's vote was a symbolic gesture of democracy that had been suppressed for years under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein.
"This is the day to get our revenge on Saddam," said Kurdish voter Chiman Saleh, a Kirkuk housewife who said two of her brothers were killed by the ousted regime. Voter turnout was brisk in the northern cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, especially in Kurdish districts.
Ethnic tensions in Kirkuk, claimed by Arabs, Kurds and Turkomen, could be seen, however. Norjan Adel, a poll watcher for the Turkoman Front, complained of irregularities by the Kurds, including multiple voting.
She prevented a Kurdish policeman from entering the station carrying a flag of the self-ruled Kurdish region, saying: "I only recognize the Iraqi flag, and any other flag is a joke."
More than 1,000 Sunni clerics called on their followers to vote, and insurgent groups, including Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic Army in Iraq, pledged not to attack polling stations.
But several explosions rocked Baghdad as the polls opened, including a large one near the heavily fortified Green Zone that slightly injured two civilians and a U.S. Marine, the U.S. military said. A Marine assigned to the 2nd Marine Logistics Group, II Marine Expeditionary Force was killed in an IED attack while conducting combat operations near Ramadi on Wednesday, the military said Thursday.
A civilian was killed when a mortar shell exploded near a polling station in the northern city of Tal Afar, and a bomb killed a hospital guard near a voting site in Mosul.
A bomb also exploded in Ramadi, and the U.S. military said one was defused at a polling station in Fallujah. Some election sites in Ramadi were guarded by masked gunmen. But these incidents were minimal in comparison to the violence that was expected around election time.
"Quiet days are nice because it means we can get work done and focus on future planning and operations, not just the current fight," one U.S. Army Military Police member told FOXNews.com. "For the elections, we don't see much of what's going on, as it is the Iraqi army and police forces that are at the polls. So for us, we are just at our FOBs [forward operating bases] watching and waiting."
Maj. Gen Rick Lynch, deputy general for the multi-national forces in Iraq, told FOX News that there were only 14 attacks against polling stations, "which is a direct tribute to the capability of the Iraqi security forces � they wanted to make sure their people could vote for a representative government and they did that today."
"This is an amazing day for the people of Iraq," he added.
"It is a good day so far, good for us, good for Iraq," Khalilzad told The Associated Press. "This is a first step for integrating the Sunni Arabs and bringing them into the political process and integrating them into the government."
Up to 15 million Iraqis were electing 275 members of the first full-term parliament since Saddam's ouster from among 7,655 candidates running on 996 tickets, representing Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish, Turkomen and sectarian interests across a wide political spectrum.
Iraqis do not vote for individual candidates, but instead for lists � or tickets � that compete for the seats in each of the 18 provinces.
An alliance of Shiite religious parties, which dominate the current government, was expected to win the largest number of seats � but not enough to form a new administration without a coalition with rival groups. That could set the stage for lengthy and possibly bitter negotiations to produce a government.
The new parliament will serve a four-year term; an interim parliament was voted in Jan. 30, and the constitution was ratified in October. The new parliament will name a government, including a new prime minister.
With a nationwide vehicle ban in effect, most Iraqis walked to the polls. Streets were generally empty of cars, except for police, ambulances and a few others with special permits.
Tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police guarded polling stations, with U.S. and other coalition forces standing by in case of trouble. U.S. troops and bomb-detecting dogs checked thousands of polling stations before handing over control to Iraqi police.
"Sometimes it feels like we're beating a dead horse, but maybe this here today will be the culmination of it all," said Staff Sgt. Jason Scapanski, 33, of St. Cloud, Minn., assigned to the 101st Airborne in Salahuddin province north of Baghdad.
U.S. and coalition officials who are banking on strong voter turnout to elect a legitimate government in the eyes of the many different Iraqi groups who, despite some of their religious differences, have a common goal: To get a representative government up and running as soon as possible so that U.S. troops can go home.
Sunnis Vote En Masse
In Fallujah, the former Sunni insurgent stronghold overrun by U.S. forces in November 2004, hundreds packed a high school polling station, with many saying they saw the vote as a way to not only get rid of the Americans but to also get rid of the Shiite-dominated government.
"It's an extremist government [and] we would like an end to the occupation," said Ahmed Majid, 31. "Really the only true solution is through politics. But there is the occupation and the only way that will end is with weapons."
Even in insurgent bastions such as Ramadi and Haqlaniyah, Sunnis were turning out in large numbers.
"I came here and voted in order to prove that Sunnis are not a minority in this country," said lawyer Yahya Abdul-Jalil in Ramadi. "We lost a lot during the last elections, but this time we will take our normal and key role in leading this country."
Teacher Khalid Fawaz in Fallujah said he also participated "so that the Sunnis are no longer marginalized."
"We want to choose Sunni candidates. We want them to be in power because they are capable of providing security and they do not kill or beat us," said Khali Ibrahim, 70, as he hobbled up the stairs leaning on a cane.
Sunnis have repeatedly complained of abuse at the hands of Shiite-dominated security forces. U.S. and Iraqi forces have come across several apparent victims of torture around Iraq.
The big turnout in Fallujah also caused problems, with voters, election officials and the mayor complaining of a shortage of ballot boxes and ballots.
Mayor Dhari Youssef al-Arsan, who put turnout at about 45 percent, said 11 out of 35 polling stations did not get ballot boxes and some ran out of ballots in the early hours of voting.
"Three sites stopped because they ran out of ballots," he said. "We had an administrative problem opening polling sites in some of the centers."
He said some of the voters told him that "they thought it was done purposely."
Shiites and Kurds seemed more hopeful that the new government would be more successful than the outgoing one in restoring security and providing basic services. Shiites also appeared confident of retaining their leadership role.
The country's leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, told Shiites to support candidates who defend their principles � a veiled warning against turning toward secular political movements.
"They are clerics, and clerics do not steal our money," said Abbasiya Ahmad, 80, as she voted for the Shiite religious bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, at a Baghdad polling station. "We want people who protect our money."
If all goes well, the United States and other coalition partners would like to begin drawing down their troops next year.
Despite the positive signs in Thursday's elections, some Middle East experts warn that the work is not done when all the votes are counted.
"I do think it's a very significant change, I do think it creates the potential to have a great impact," former Mideast Ambassador Dennis Ross told FOX News, referring to Sunni participation in the elections. "But before we rush to make a decision about how soon change will take place and what it's going to look like," he added, it will take awhile to set up the new government and for Sunnis make revisions to the constitution.
Former Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor told FOX News said he believes the new government may be set up sooner than expected, perhaps within a month after the votes are counted.
"I think the administration here, the U.S. administration, is going to be less reticent about putting pressure on the Iraqis to get a government formed quickly," Senor said.
He also said there may be a problem with the new prime minister having enough power to make decisions, given how the Iraqi constitution decentralizes power in the executive branch, which may lead to gridlock among the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds on some issues.
"I do think in that regard, decision-making is going to be tough for any prime minister, whoever's elected," he said.
President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, highlighted a key looming fight � possible amendments to the constitution � as he voted in the northern city of Sulaimaniyah.
"I hope that the Iraqi people will stay united. We hope that the people will vote to keep the constitution that was approved by the Iraqi people," he said.
FOX News' Dana Lewis and Liza Porteus and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source |
How can we abandon them now? And don't these elections show that the Iraqis--including the Sunnis--truly ARE grateful for what we've done? Oh, yes it does, because otherwise they wouldn't have taken so many chances and worked so hard and gone out and voted in such large numbers. So, yeah, this proves just how grateful they are, those who say that they want us out and aren't grateful.
If they're not grateful, why did they vote in such large numbers and take advantage of the opportunity?
Last edited by Republican_Man on Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:27 pm |
|
I had a mediocre day at school. Now...now, I'm esctatic! This is such a great day for Iraq, Democracy, the US, and the WORLD! Iraq is free. It's the first democracy of its kind in the Arab world. I am very enlightened, excited, and hopeful for a bright future for the Iraqis.
Lord, please watch over our brave men and women so that they may continue to win this war, that they may be safe, and the Iraqis may have a successful society and we may very well pull out within the next few years. And please help many of the Democrats to just stop degrading our troops, our President, and the Mission. It is only hurting our brave men and women in uniform, not helping them.
In Jesus name I pray.
God Bless America.
God Bless Iraq.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:28 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Well at least you acknowledge that that's a good thing, even though you disagree with the means. I just hope that you have the sanity to support our troops staying in there as long as necessary |
I acknowledge that a dictator removed is a good thing. I don't however think, that the ends justify the means in Iraq. You may be prepared to sacrifice thousands upon thousands of innocents for the perk of saying that your home country "freed" another, but I'm not. As for staying, it's more detrimental than if the troops were to leave (in due time of course). They're walking targets with innocent Iraqis surrounding them.
|
|
|
charlie
American Soldier
Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 598
Location: In The United States
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:31 pm |
|
I can make a guess that you Oberon have not been to Iraq to see all the stuff that went on. To introduce myself, I am a sergant in the US Army. I have been to Iraq twice already and what I have seen was worth fighting for.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:34 pm |
|
^ Agreed Charlie, . I feel the lost of life is regertful, but there was no choice in the matter. Saddam was a new Hitler in the making.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:28 pm |
|
I agree with both of you. And thank you, Sergant, for your service. We are indebted to you, and all of your comrades.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:19 pm |
|
| Quote: | OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ:
Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State
PART I -- STRATEGIC OVERVIEW
"Our mission in Iraq is clear. We're hunting down the terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We're advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren."
-- President George W. Bush
June 28, 2003
VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED
As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:
In the short term:
An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
In the medium term:
An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
In the longer term:
An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
VICTORY IN IRAQ IS A VITAL U.S. INTEREST
The war on terrorism is the defining challenge of our generation, just as the struggle against communism and fascism were challenges of the generations before. As with those earlier struggles, the United States is fully committed to meeting this challenge. We will do everything it takes to win.
Prevailing in Iraq will help us win the war on terror.
The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.
Osama Bin Laden has declared that the "third world war...is raging" in Iraq, and it will end there, in "either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation."
Bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri has declared Iraq to be "the place for the greatest battle," where he hopes to "expel the Americans" and then spread "the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq."
Al Qaida in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has openly declared that "we fight today in Iraq, and tomorrow in the Land of the Two Holy Places, and after there the west."
As the terrorists themselves recognize, the outcome in Iraq -- success or failure -- is critical to the outcome in the broader war on terrorism.
What happens in Iraq will influence the fate of the Middle East for generations to come, with a profound impact on our own national security.
Ceding ground to terrorists in one of the world's most strategic regions will threaten the world's economy and America's security, growth, and prosperity, for decades to come.
An emerging democracy in Iraq will change the regional status quo that for decades has bred alienation and spawned the transnational terrorism that targets us today.
The terrorists' perverse ideology is countered by the advance of freedom and the recognition that all people have the right to live under democracy and the rule of law, free from oppression and fear, with hope and optimism for the future.
THE BENEFITS OF VICTORY IN IRAQ
Helping the people of Iraq is the morally right thing to do -- America does not abandon its friends in the face of adversity. Helping the people of Iraq, however, is also in our own national interest.
If we and our Iraqi partners prevail in Iraq, we will have made America:
Safer...
by removing Saddam Hussein, a destabilizing force in a vital region, a ruthless dictator who had a history of pursuing and even using weapons of mass destruction, was a state sponsor of terror, had invaded his neighbors, and who was violently opposed to America;
by depriving terrorists of a safe haven from which they could plan and launch attacks against the United States and American interests;
by delivering a strategic setback to the terrorists and keeping them on the run;
by delivering a decisive blow to the ideology that fuels international terrorism, proving that the power of freedom is stronger than a perverse vision of violence, hatred, and oppression.
Stronger...
by demonstrating to our friends and enemies the reliability of U.S. power, the strength of our commitment to our friends, and the tenacity of our resolve against our enemies;
by securing a new friend and partner in the fight against terrorism in the heart of the Middle East.
More Certain of its Future ...
politically, by bolstering democratic reformers -- and the prospects for peaceful, democratic governments -- in a region that for decades has been a source of instability and stagnation;
economically, by facilitating progressive reform in the region and depriving terrorists control over a hub of the world's economy.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE
If we and our Iraqi partners fail in Iraq, Iraq will become:
A safe haven for terrorists as Afghanistan once was, only this time in some of the world's most strategic territory, with vast natural resources to exploit and to use to fund future attacks.
A country where oppression -- and the brutal imposition of inhumane practices, such as those of the Taliban in Afghanistan -- is pervasive.
A failed state and source of instability for the entire Middle East, with all the attendant risks and incalculable costs for American security and prosperity.
Furthermore, if we and our Iraqi partners fail in Iraq, the terrorists will have:
Won a decisive victory over the United States, vindicating their tactics of beheadings, suicide bombings, and ruthless intimidation of civilians, inviting more deadly attacks against Americans and other free people across the globe.
Placed the American people in greater danger by destabilizing a vital region, weakening our friends, and clearing the way for terrorist attacks here at home. The terrorists will be emboldened in their belief that America cannot stand and fight, but will cut and run in the face of adversity.
Called into question American credibility and commitment in the region and the world. Our friends and foes alike would doubt our staying power, and this would damage our efforts to counter other security threats and to advance other economic and political interests worldwide.
Since 1998, Al Qaida has repeatedly cited Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia, as examples to encourage more attacks against America and our interests overseas.
Weakened the growing democratic impulses in the region. Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and pluralism in the region -- a historic opportunity, central to America's long-term security, forever lost.
If we retreat from Iraq, the terrorists will pursue us and our allies, expanding the fight to the rest of the region and to our own shores.
OUR ENEMIES AND THEIR GOALS
The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. These three groups share a common opposition to the elected Iraqi government and to the presence of Coalition forces, but otherwise have separate and to some extent incompatible goals.
Rejectionists are the largest group. They are largely Sunni Arabs who have not embraced the shift from Saddam Hussein's Iraq to a democratically governed state. Not all Sunni Arabs fall into this category. But those that do are against a new Iraq in which they are no longer the privileged elite. Most of these rejectionists opposed the new constitution, but many in their ranks are recognizing that opting out of the democratic process has hurt their interests.
We judge that over time many in this group will increasingly support a democratic Iraq provided that the federal government protects minority rights and the legitimate interests of all communities.
Saddamists and former regime loyalists harbor dreams of reestablishing a Ba'athist dictatorship and have played a lead role in fomenting wider sentiment against the Iraqi government and the Coalition.
We judge that few from this group can be won over to support a democratic Iraq, but that this group can be marginalized to the point where it can and will be defeated by Iraqi forces.
Terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida make up the smallest enemy group but are the most lethal and pose the most immediate threat because (1) they are responsible for the most dramatic atrocities, which kill the most people and function as a recruiting tool for further terrorism and (2) they espouse the extreme goals of Osama Bin Laden -- chaos in Iraq which will allow them to establish a base for toppling Iraq's neighbors and launching attacks outside the region and against the U.S. homeland.
The terrorists have identified Iraq as central to their global aspirations. For that reason, terrorists and extremists from all parts of the Middle East and North Africa have found their way to Iraq and made common cause with indigenous religious extremists and former members of Saddam's regime. This group cannot be won over and must be defeated -- killed or captured -- through sustained counterterrorism operations.
There are other elements that threaten the democratic process in Iraq, including criminals and Shi'a religious extremists, but we judge that such elements can be handled by Iraqi forces alone and/or assimilated into the political process in the short term.
THE STRATEGY OF OUR ENEMIES
Despite their competing goals, these disparate enemy elements share a common operational concept: Intimidate, coerce, or convince the Iraqi public not to support the transition to democracy by persuading them that the nascent Iraqi government is not competent and will be abandoned by a Coalition that lacks the stomach for this fight.
The enemy's strategy, in short, is to intimidate, terrorize, and tear down -- a strategy with short-term advantage because it is easier to tear down than to build up. But this strategy is not sustainable in the long term because it is rejected by the overwhelming mass of the Iraqi population.
Enemy Lines of Action. The enemy seeks to ...
Weaken the Coalition's resolve, and our resolve at home, through barbaric mass-casualty attacks, public slaughter of Iraqi civilians and hostages, infliction of casualties on Coalition forces, and use of the media to spread propaganda and intimidate adversaries.
Destroy confidence in the Iraqi government by sabotaging key essential service (oil and electricity) nodes and by derailing the political process.
Damage trust in Iraqi Security Forces through propaganda, infiltration, and barbaric attacks on the weak and the innocent.
Sabotage Iraqi unity through propaganda against the Shi'a majority punctuated with attacks intended to spark sectarian conflict and civil war.
Establish safe havens to plan attacks and conduct intimidation campaigns.
Expand the fight to neighboring states and beyond.
OUR STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IS CLEAR
Our Strategy is Clear: We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing a comprehensive approach that involves the integrated efforts of the entire United States Government, the Iraqi government, and Coalition governments, and encourages the active involvement of the United Nations, other international organizations, and supportive regional states.
Our strategy involves three integrated tracks -- political, security, and economic -- each with separate objectives, but together helping Iraqis to defeat the terrorists, Saddamists, and rejectionists, and secure a new democratic state in Iraq.
The Political Track
(Isolate, Engage, Build)
Objective: To help the Iraqi people forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic government, thereby isolating enemy elements from the broader public.
To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
Isolate hardened enemy elements from those who can be won over to a peaceful political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to the Iraqi people that they have a stake in a viable, democratic Iraq.
Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of peaceful participation.
Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.
The Security Track
(Clear, Hold, Build)
Objective: To develop the Iraqis' capacity to secure their country while carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency.
To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven.
Hold areas freed from enemy control by ensuring that they remain under the control of a peaceful Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence.
Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.
The Economic Track
(Restore, Reform, Build)
Objective: To assist the Iraqi government in establishing the foundations for a sound economy with the capacity to deliver essential services.
To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
Restore Iraq's neglected infrastructure so it can meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy.
Reform Iraq's economy, which has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future.
Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.
THIS STRATEGY IS INTEGRATED, AND ITS ELEMENTS ARE MUTUALLY REINFORCING
Progress along one of the political, security, and economic tracks reinforces progress along the other tracks. For example:
As the political process has moved forward, terrorists have become more isolated, leading to more intelligence on their leadership and hideouts from Iraqi citizens, which has led to better security in previously violent areas, a more stable infrastructure, the prospect of economic progress, and expanding political participation.
As security operations in Fallujah, Mosul, Tal Afar, and elsewhere have killed or led to the capture of high-level terrorists and insurgents, residents in those areas have come forward to participate in the political process, registering and turning out to vote in vast numbers, and providing local residents a meaningful voice in the new Iraq.
As economic activities have progressed, ordinary citizens have returned to normal life and developed a stake in a peaceful Iraq and thus become motivated to support the political process and cooperate with security forces,
Part II of this paper will discuss the three tracks -- political, security, and economic -- in more detail, so Americans can better understand the elements of our vital mission, the nature of our strategy, why we believe this strategy will succeed, the progress we are making, and how our government is organized to help Iraqis ensure lasting victory in Iraq.
VICTORY WILL TAKE TIME
Our Strategy Is Working. Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, drafting of a permanent constitution, ratification of that constitution, introduction of a sound currency, gradual restoration of Iraq's neglected infrastructure, and the ongoing training and equipping of Iraq's security forces.
Yet many challenges remain:
Iraq is overcoming decades of a vicious tyranny, under which governmental authority stemmed solely from fear, terror, and brutality. Saddam Hussein devastated Iraq, wrecked its economy, ruined its infrastructure, and destroyed its human capital. It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power.
We and the Iraqi people are fighting a ruthless enemy, which is multi-headed, with competing ambitions and differing networks. Getting an accurate picture of this enemy, understanding its makeup and weaknesses, and defeating it, requires patience, persistence, and determined effort along all three strategic tracks.
Terrorism and insurgencies historically take many years to defeat, through a combination of political, economic, and military tools. Iraq's violence is different from other such conflicts, where insurgents often had unified command and control or mounted a successful campaign to win the hearts and minds of the population. Nonetheless, Iraq is likely to struggle with some level of violence for many years to come.
The neighborhood is inhospitable. Iran and Syria have failed to provide support to Iraq's new government and have in many ways actively undermined it. The region, while including some cooperative actors, has only recently mobilized to support the emergence of a democratic and stable Iraq.
The Sunni community is still searching for strong, reliable leadership. Although many Sunnis also suffered under Saddam, leaders from their community generally associated with the Ba'ath Party, not the opposition to the regime. The Sunni religious community, moreover, is less hierarchical and more dispersed, which is reflected in Sunni politics. As a result of these realities, few Sunni leaders have spoken for the larger Sunni community in Iraq. Elections in December will produce elected Sunni leaders who can represent their community with legitimate authority.
Many Sunnis are also coming to terms with the reality that their community no longer monopolizes power in Iraq. They are grappling with their role in a democratic country in which they are a minority, albeit with constitutional protections for minority rights and interests.
Many of Iraq's communities remain skeptical of the central government and nervous about the creation of an Iraqi state where power is concentrated in Baghdad. Their allegiance to a united Iraqi government will depend upon the central government demonstrating the will and capability to govern effectively and fairly on behalf of all Iraqis.
Earlier efforts to correct past wrongs have sometimes alienated Sunnis who were not complicit with Saddam's crimes. Iraq's leaders need to find a middle ground -- between pursuing justice for every past wrong and leaving the past unexamined.
With democratization has come the emergence of new groups, not all of whom have shared the goal of a free, pluralistic, and democratic Iraq. Some groups -- like members of the Mahdi Militia -- have sought to maximize discontent with the Coalition presence and have at times clashed violently with other parties.
The continued existence and influence of militias and armed groups, often affiliated with political parties, hamper the rule of law in some parts of Iraq. These groups have also infiltrated the police forces and sparked violent exchanges in areas of the country that are otherwise peaceful.
Iraq's economy is still shackled with many vestiges of a highly centralized economy and stagnant and corrupt institutions. Creating new institutions, reforming old ones, and developing new policies will be necessary to encourage economic growth. The prosperity of average Iraqis will be enhanced only if Iraq reduces the massive subsidy programs that burden its economy.
WHY OUR STRATEGY IS (AND MUST BE) CONDITIONS-BASED
Success in the short, medium, and long run will depend on progress in overcoming these challenges and on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Our strategy -- along the political, security, and economic tracks -- is establishing the conditions for victory. These conditions include:
Progress in the Iraqi political process and the increasing willingness of Iraqis to forge political compromises;
Consolidation of gains in the training of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF);
Commitment to and implementation of economic reforms by Iraqi leaders;
Increased cooperation of Iraq's neighbors;
Expanded support from the international community;
Continued support of the American people.
Although we are confident of victory in Iraq, we will not put a date certain on when each stage of success will be reached -- because the timing of success depends upon meeting certain conditions, not arbitrary timetables.
Arbitrary deadlines or timetables for withdrawal of Coalition forces -- divorced from conditions on the ground -- would be irresponsible and deadly, as they would suggest to the terrorists, Saddamists, and rejectionists that they can simply wait to win.
No war has ever been won on a timetable -- and neither will this one.
Lack of a timetable, however, does not mean that the Coalition's posture in Iraq (both military and political) is static. On the contrary, we continually adjust our posture and approaches as conditions evolve and Iraqi capabilities grow.
Coalition troop levels, for example, will increase where necessary to defeat the enemy or provide additional security for key events like the referendum and elections. But troop levels will decrease over time, as Iraqis continue to take on more of the security and civilian responsibilities themselves.
We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process consolidates and as Iraqi Security Forces grow and gain experience.
As Iraqis take on more responsibility for security, Coalition forces will increasingly move to supporting roles in most areas. The mission of our forces will change -- from conducting operations and keeping the peace, to more specialized operations targeted at the most vicious terrorists and leadership networks.
As security conditions improve and as Iraqi Security Forces become increasingly capable of securing their own country, our forces will increasingly move out of the cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoy missions.
While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may gather and organize.
As our posture changes over time, so too will the posture of our Coalition partners. We and the Iraqis must work with them to coordinate our efforts, helping Iraq to consolidate and secure its gains on many different fronts.
OUR STRATEGY TRACKS AND MEASURES PROGRESS
We track numerous indicators to map the progress of our strategy and change our tactics whenever necessary. Detailed reports -- both classified and unclassified -- are issued weekly, monthly, and quarterly by relevant agencies and military units.
Many of these reports with detailed metrics are released to the public, and are readily accessible. For example:
Gains in training Iraqi security forces are updated weekly at www.mnstci.iraq.centcom.mil;
Improvements in the economy and infrastructure are collected weekly by the State Department (www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/) as well as USAID, which continually updates its many ongoing programs and initiatives in Iraq (www.usaid.gov/iraq);
Extensive reports are also made every three months to Congress, and are accessible at the State (www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/2207/) and Defense (www.defenselink.mil/pubs/) Department websites.
Americans can read and assess these reports to get a better sense of what is being done in Iraq and the progress being made on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis.
Some of the most important metrics we track are:
Political: The political benchmarks set forth in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546 and the Transitional Administrative Law; the number of Iraqis from all areas willing to participate in the political process as evidenced by voter registration and turnout.
Security: The quantity and quality of Iraqi units; the number of actionable intelligence tips received from Iraqis; the percentage of operations conducted by Iraqis alone or with minor Coalition assistance; the number of car bombs intercepted and defused; offensive operations conducted by Iraqi and Coalition forces; and the number of contacts initiated by Coalition forces, as opposed to the enemy.
Economic: GDP; per capita GDP; inflation; electricity generated and delivered; barrels of oil produced and exported; and numbers of businesses opened.
Other indicators are also important to success, but less subject to precise measurement, such as the extent to which principles of transparency, trust in government institutions, and acceptance of the rule of law are taking hold amongst a population that has never known them.
These indicators have more strategic significance than the metrics that the terrorists and insurgents want the world to use as a measure of progress or failure: number of bombings. |
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:07 am Blair thanks troops in lightning Iraq visit |
|
| Quote: | Blair thanks troops in lightning Iraq visit
Tony Blair today personally thanked British troops in Iraq for spending a Christmas away from friends and family, as he made a lightning trip to Basra.
In a fleeting visit, kept under wraps in advance because of security considerations, the prime minister conceded there were "controversies ... about the politics of the situation" and repeated Britain's intention to "draw down" troops as the Iraqi police and military forces were brought up to strength.
It was Mr Blair's fourth visit to Iraq since the military invasion of March 2003. He flew in from Kuwait, but did not leave the UK-controlled the south of Iraq.
The prime minister, in shirtsleeves, addressed a base housing around 4,000 troops - nearly half the total of 8,500 UK service personnel serving in Iraq. Ninety-eight UK soldiers have been killed since the invasion.
Standing on a low-loader truck, Mr Blair said: "I know it's very difficult from time to time, but you really ought to know whatever controversies there are about the politics of this situation, people back home have enormous pride in our armed forces.
"I know it's particularly tough being away from your families at Christmas and new year. I just want you to know how grateful we are for the work you are doing here.
"However tough it is, I hope you have some sense of how important it is."
Pointing to the 10m Iraqis who voted in recent elections, he added: "The important thing is to try and help this country become the democracy its people want it to be."
That, he said, would be done by providing the security that allows the Iraqi forces to build up their own strength, "and then of course we can eventually draw down our own capability".
"The importance of this is probably greater today than it has ever been," said Mr Blair.
"Because, if Iraq does stabilise and become a democracy, then the region is more safe, our own country is more safe, because international terrorism will have been dealt a huge blow.
"If we manage to defeat the terrorism here, we will have dealt it a blow worldwide.
"I know how dangerous it is sometimes, because we have lost good colleagues here - and it is tough, I know, sometimes."
But whatever the dangers "you can look back at this time and you can be very, very proud of what you have done", the prime minister told the troops.
He also met local Iraqi workers who help staff the motor workshop, including the foreman, who gave his name as Lapta. Mr Blair told him: "Thanks for all the work you are doing here." Lapta said after meeting the prime minister: "He's a very good man, an honest man."
Mr Blair was due to have meetings with the UK's deputy ambassador to Iraq, Tim Torlot, US officials and the British military commander Lt Gen Nick Houghton.
Mr Blair was also meeting overall US commander, Gen George Casey. His spokesman said the prime minister wanted to "talk through the way forward" with diplomats and military commanders in the wake of last week's Iraqi elections.
The prime minister will also discuss how the process of "Iraqi-isation" of local military and security forces is progressing in the UK's main sector of operations with Gen John Cooper, who commands the south-east region based around Basra.
British commanders have expressed concern in the past that local security forces have been infiltrated by insurgents. |
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:39 pm |
|
Here's a speech on Iraq I just finished writing for this weekend's Speech and Debate tournament. I could really use some feedback on it, some suggestions on how to improve it. (I really can't make it longer, though. There's a 10 minute max limit, and I'm PAST the limit. If there's something little I could delete, or reword better, both to shorten and otherwise, that would be great, cause I need to shorten it juuust a bit (it's roughly 10 1/2 minutes, and I only get a 15 second grace period, so I need to cut it back by at least 30 seconds).
Emphasis is not present in here because there is too much italicizing for emphasis, which would be too annoying to transfer to PHP-type stuff.
After I get some feedback you liberals can argue it
| Quote: | Iraq: A Speech
September 11th, 2001: The most devastating attack on American soil occurred. Planes struck each World Trade Center tower, collided with the Pentagon, and crashed in Pennsylvania.
This horrible attack, which cost the lives of 3,000 innocent Americans, was perpetrated by a merciless villain that cares not for human life, so long as they can achieve whatever devious goal they have.
And this deadly attack taught us a very pointed lesson�that if there are any hints of an imminent threat, we cannot allow it to fully materialize. We must stop it prematurely. We must stop threats before they fully materialize.
Such is the doctrine of the Bush Administration, and this very doctrine can be seen in their policy towards the state of Iraq. Let us examine this very policy, and the situation in Iraq.
Saddam has a history of torturing and using weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and that history could not be ignored in the run-up to military operations against the state. As Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger said in 1998, �[Saddam] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.�
Throughout his time as ruler, Iraqi Kurds were slaughtered in a brutal manner, through his attempted genocide. This attempted genocide was in fashions reminiscent of Hitler, with first-hand accounts from Iraqis themselves discussing this, such as splitting men, woman, and children up and gassing them.
The Saddam Regime put men, women, and children alike into rape rooms, torture chambers, and plastic body shredders�and in front of their parents or children, no less! If a family member was put to death by the regime, and then someone spoke of that member, the person would be killed. Abu Graihb doesn�t even compare to Saddam�s prisons�or Saddam�s Abu Graihb, for that matter.
The state was a committed enemy of our country, and even fired at our planes, in violation of the 1991 Gulf War Treaty, and gave rewards to the families of suicide bombers that killed Israelis and Americans. Saddam himself was a terrorist.
These things we could not ignore in the lead-up to war. Nor could we ignore the intelligence that virtually the entire world�from President Clinton to President Bush to John Kerry, to France, the United Nations, and beyond, all the way to the CIA�had, displaying the seemingly real threat, acknowledged by all, of weapons of mass destruction posed by Saddam.
�If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq�s weapons of mass destruction program.� My friends, that quote right there was not President Bush, but President Clinton on February 17th, 1998�the same year that regime change in Iraq became US policy�under President Clinton.
Let�s list out some other quotes of those who are now opposed to the war:
> In 2002 former VP Al Gore said, and I quote, �We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.� Here you have the former vice-president of the United States who did not get his intelligence from the current president saying that Saddam had WMDs.
> Senator John Kerry, who said �If you don�t believe�Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, you shouldn�t vote for me,� said in 2003, �Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime � And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction � So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real��
> Senator Ted Kennedy, the man who accused this president of lying, stated in September of 2002, �We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.�
> And finally, the United Nations Security Council announced Resolution 1441, declaring that if Iraq did not disarm action would be taken. Action, however, was never taken by the organization, most likely due to Oil for Food, and it was up to the United States to do something.
And, my friends, the list of statements of the Democrats doesn�t end there.
One of the claims of the Bush administration was that Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda. This has been shown to be true, as communications between the two from the early 90s have been recovered, and Zarqowi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, had been injured and was given high-quality medical attention and great security through harboring by Saddam�s government.
Hillary Clinton, wife of the former President Bill Clinton, acknowledged this, saying, �In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members � It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.�
Clearly everyone thought, at the time that military operations began, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that could get into the hands of terrorists, whom he had connections with, and had to be stopped, and so this President did not lie. Nor can it be proven that he lied. If he lied, so did the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, France, Russia, the United Nations, and so on.
I mean, when you�re intelligence chief says that something is a �slam dunk,� and the world community says that a country poses a threat, and the country is a committed enemy, will you not try to stop the threat before something far worse than 9/11 can occur? This is exactly what this president did.
But history aside, let�s move to take a look at the current situation in Iraq.
Since we have gone into Iraq, no longer are there mass murderings, torture chambers, plastic body shredders, rape rooms, and incredibly harsh prisons. No longer is a ruthless dictator�a declared enemy of the US�running around free. Instead, he is on trial. No longer are the Iraqi people oppressed.
In January of last year, Iraqis went out and voted on a provisional government, and in October more than 63% of registered Iraqi voters�more than in the US�came out and voted on the acceptance of an Iraqi-made Constitution. It was approved by 78%. On December 15th around 70% of registered Iraqi voted�including a large number of Sunnis, who had boycotted the previous election�came out and voted on a new, permanent Iraqi government under the Iraqi-made Constitution. Democracy in action!
I don�t know about you, but I wasn�t alive during the rise of Democracy in the US, or for the Nazi trials after World War II, but now�now I get to see Democracy in action. People who really want it voting. And on top of that, I get to watch a brutal, murderous dictator squirm in the chair of a courtroom, on trial for his crimes. To me�to me that�s incredibly enlightening. Who can say anything bad about that? Now the Iraqi people get to determine their own leaders. This is unprecedented in the Arab World. Is this not worth it, the spread of freedom? Is this not good for Iraq, for the world, and for the United States?
And so, looking at the multitude of successes we�ve achieved there, we cannot just abandon the Iraqi people now to terrorists that want to halt their freedom and bring upon a terrorist state, as some have suggested. We have to see it through and stay the course. We have to prevent a terrorist state from rising to power there. Much is at stake with our effort there, for both Iraq and the United States. We cannot abandon the Iraqis in their time of need. What would it say to the terrorists, and the world, if we left a fight because of hard times? That would give a great propaganda tool to the terrorists.
Whether or not you agree with the war, it is clear that Iraq is better off now than under Saddam, that good has been achieved, and we must remain until the job is done. A dictator is gone. A country can now run itself, without tyranny. Iraq can determine its own future�not a single man who slaughtered and ordered the rape and torture of innocents who disagreed with him. Freedom is on the march, and we cannot abandon that freedom to the forces of tyranny. We cannot abandon the Iraqis�and we cannot abandon our deceased soldiers. And we cannot allow a terrorist state to resurge in Iraq, for our sakes. We cannot permit another Vietnam. We cannot depart until the job is done. God bless America, and God bless Iraq. Thank you. |
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:09 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Here's a speech on Iraq I just finished writing for this weekend's Speech and Debate tournament. I could really use some feedback on it, some suggestions on how to improve it. (I really can't make it longer, though. There's a 10 minute max limit, and I'm PAST the limit. If there's something little I could delete, or reword better, both to shorten and otherwise, that would be great, cause I need to shorten it juuust a bit (it's roughly 10 1/2 minutes, and I only get a 15 second grace period, so I need to cut it back by at least 30 seconds).
Emphasis is not present in here because there is too much italicizing for emphasis, which would be too annoying to transfer to PHP-type stuff.
After I get some feedback you liberals can argue it
| Quote: | Iraq: A Speech
September 11th, 2001: The most devastating attack on American soil occurred. Planes struck each World Trade Center tower, collided with the Pentagon, and crashed in Pennsylvania.
This horrible attack, which cost the lives of 3,000 innocent Americans, was perpetrated by a merciless villain that cares not for human life, so long as they can achieve whatever devious goal they have.
And this deadly attack taught us a very pointed lesson�that if there are any hints of an imminent threat, we cannot allow it to fully materialize. We must stop it prematurely. We must stop threats before they fully materialize.
Such is the doctrine of the Bush Administration, and this very doctrine can be seen in their policy towards the state of Iraq. Let us examine this very policy, and the situation in Iraq.
Saddam has a history of torturing and using weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and that history could not be ignored in the run-up to military operations against the state. As Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger said in 1998, �[Saddam] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.�
Throughout his time as ruler, Iraqi Kurds were slaughtered in a brutal manner, through his attempted genocide. This attempted genocide was in fashions reminiscent of Hitler, with first-hand accounts from Iraqis themselves discussing this, such as splitting men, woman, and children up and gassing them.
The Saddam Regime put men, women, and children alike into rape rooms, torture chambers, and plastic body shredders�and in front of their parents or children, no less! If a family member was put to death by the regime, and then someone spoke of that member, the person would be killed. Abu Graihb doesn�t even compare to Saddam�s prisons�or Saddam�s Abu Graihb, for that matter.
The state was a committed enemy of our country, and even fired at our planes, in violation of the 1991 Gulf War Treaty, and gave rewards to the families of suicide bombers that killed Israelis and Americans. Saddam himself was a terrorist.
These things we could not ignore in the lead-up to war. Nor could we ignore the intelligence that virtually the entire world�from President Clinton to President Bush to John Kerry, to France, the United Nations, and beyond, all the way to the CIA�had, displaying the seemingly real threat, acknowledged by all, of weapons of mass destruction posed by Saddam.
�If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq�s weapons of mass destruction program.� My friends, that quote right there was not President Bush, but President Clinton on February 17th, 1998�the same year that regime change in Iraq became US policy�under President Clinton.
Let�s list out some other quotes of those who are now opposed to the war:
> In 2002 former VP Al Gore said, and I quote, �We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.� Here you have the former vice-president of the United States who did not get his intelligence from the current president saying that Saddam had WMDs.
> Senator John Kerry, who said �If you don�t believe�Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, you shouldn�t vote for me,� said in 2003, �Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime � And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction � So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real��
> Senator Ted Kennedy, the man who accused this president of lying, stated in September of 2002, �We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.�
> And finally, the United Nations Security Council announced Resolution 1441, declaring that if Iraq did not disarm action would be taken. Action, however, was never taken by the organization, most likely due to Oil for Food, and it was up to the United States to do something.
And, my friends, the list of statements of the Democrats doesn�t end there.
One of the claims of the Bush administration was that Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda. This has been shown to be true, as communications between the two from the early 90s have been recovered, and Zarqowi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, had been injured and was given high-quality medical attention and great security through harboring by Saddam�s government.
Hillary Clinton, wife of the former President Bill Clinton, acknowledged this, saying, �In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members � It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.�
Clearly everyone thought, at the time that military operations began, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that could get into the hands of terrorists, whom he had connections with, and had to be stopped, and so this President did not lie. Nor can it be proven that he lied. If he lied, so did the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, France, Russia, the United Nations, and so on.
I mean, when you�re intelligence chief says that something is a �slam dunk,� and the world community says that a country poses a threat, and the country is a committed enemy, will you not try to stop the threat before something far worse than 9/11 can occur? This is exactly what this president did.
But history aside, let�s move to take a look at the current situation in Iraq.
Since we have gone into Iraq, no longer are there mass murderings, torture chambers, plastic body shredders, rape rooms, and incredibly harsh prisons. No longer is a ruthless dictator�a declared enemy of the US�running around free. Instead, he is on trial. No longer are the Iraqi people oppressed.
In January of last year, Iraqis went out and voted on a provisional government, and in October more than 63% of registered Iraqi voters�more than in the US�came out and voted on the acceptance of an Iraqi-made Constitution. It was approved by 78%. On December 15th around 70% of registered Iraqi voted�including a large number of Sunnis, who had boycotted the previous election�came out and voted on a new, permanent Iraqi government under the Iraqi-made Constitution. Democracy in action!
I don�t know about you, but I wasn�t alive during the rise of Democracy in the US, or for the Nazi trials after World War II, but now�now I get to see Democracy in action. People who really want it voting. And on top of that, I get to watch a brutal, murderous dictator squirm in the chair of a courtroom, on trial for his crimes. To me�to me that�s incredibly enlightening. Who can say anything bad about that? Now the Iraqi people get to determine their own leaders. This is unprecedented in the Arab World. Is this not worth it, the spread of freedom? Is this not good for Iraq, for the world, and for the United States?
And so, looking at the multitude of successes we�ve achieved there, we cannot just abandon the Iraqi people now to terrorists that want to halt their freedom and bring upon a terrorist state, as some have suggested. We have to see it through and stay the course. We have to prevent a terrorist state from rising to power there. Much is at stake with our effort there, for both Iraq and the United States. We cannot abandon the Iraqis in their time of need. What would it say to the terrorists, and the world, if we left a fight because of hard times? That would give a great propaganda tool to the terrorists.
Whether or not you agree with the war, it is clear that Iraq is better off now than under Saddam, that good has been achieved, and we must remain until the job is done. A dictator is gone. A country can now run itself, without tyranny. Iraq can determine its own future�not a single man who slaughtered and ordered the rape and torture of innocents who disagreed with him. Freedom is on the march, and we cannot abandon that freedom to the forces of tyranny. We cannot abandon the Iraqis�and we cannot abandon our deceased soldiers. And we cannot allow a terrorist state to resurge in Iraq, for our sakes. We cannot permit another Vietnam. We cannot depart until the job is done. God bless America, and God bless Iraq. Thank you. |
|
Your speech is very persuasive. I apologize for this half-hearted critique but time isn't on my side today. The first paragraph is unneeded. At the least, it should be reworded. | Quote: | | "If there are any hints of an imminent threat". |
To begin with, you're making the US sound malicious and afraid. You left out the part where the UN searched for such a threat and emerged with news of there not being one (not imminent at least). The US attacked Iraq after the world proclaimed that there was no imminent threat. Though I don't debate that Saddam the sociopath was a threat, the war was not justified on those grounds. Secondly, the mention of September 11th should be omitted. It has nothing to do with the current situation in Iraq. Perhaps if you were narrating about Afghanistan and the fruitless search therein, it would be more appropriate. Actually, you should include Afghanistan and Usama Bin Laden in your speech and how everyone's focus mysteriously shifted after war was waged on Iraq for weapons that the UN and US never found. Or the failure in capturing Usama. Or the close relationship the President has with his family and other very influential Arabs. Or even the terror alert system! The definition of terrorist can easily be guessed by it's root word. Do you think the President and his administration had no hand in stirring up fear? Anyway, I have to go. Someday when I have more time, I'll get to the rest.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:16 pm |
|
Have you actually been over in Iraq Oberon? so how do you know if there was no WMDS except for reading in the mistrustful news?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:57 pm |
|
Thanks for your comments, oberon, but I heartely disagree. I see your points on some of these (and see you entirely wrong on others), but thanks for the comments.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Captain Dappet
Forum Revolutionist
Joined: 06 Feb 2002
Posts: 16756
Location: On my supersonic rocket ship.
|
| Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:31 pm |
|
I get crap for this every time I mention it to my political brethren, but I believe that the U.S going to war in Iraq and staying there for as long as neccessary was a good thing. Saddam was a gruesome, cruel dictator, and he did no good to the working masses of Iraq.
With the liberation of Iraq also came the official re-creation of the Iraqi Communist Party, which had been outlawed during Saddam's era.
So, yes, remain as long as neccessary in Iraq.
And thank you Sergeant, you've done the Iraqi people a great service.
-------signature-------
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Jan 05, 2006 9:18 pm |
|
Well, I disagree with your reasons for it (partially)--that is, because the communist party is back--while at the same time I do (they shouldn't be suppressed, for sure), but I'm glad that you agree with me here.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:16 pm |
|
| Leo Wyatt wrote: | | Have you actually been over in Iraq Oberon? so how do you know if there was no WMDS except for reading in the mistrustful news? |
No, I haven't been to Iraq but the fact that I've never visited doesn't dissalude me of the fact that it's a bad situation in which to be.
So instead of investing my trust in well respected news sources, I'm supposed to believe your conspiracy theories? People led lengthy searches, nothing was exposed.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:52 pm |
|
Yeah, you are. After all, you do believe in a "conspiracy" over Iraq, do you not? This is even more probable, and so. The media IS distrustful when it comes to Iraq. No doubt about it.
But I digress.
The Weekly Standard reported a few days ago that the government has classified reports of Saddam training terrorists in Iraq. They say that 11 people corroborated this story (high-ups, too), and so if 11 people say it there, I'm thinking it's true. I'm just looking forward to when the Pentagon releases those files, especially considering they could help out the President.
So, yeah. Going by that, it looks like there were even more ties to al-Qaeda prior to the war
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:08 pm |
|
What if I told you that Saddam did have WMDs? And not just in the 80s, but up until 2002--just before the UN weapons inspectors arrived?
oberon, you wouldn't believe me, nor would you agree. But Founder, would you? What about you, Theresa? And you, Exalya, Puck, Link, Cathexis?
Actually, what I'm telling you is true. There were WMDs in Iraq up until 2002, when the UN weapons inspectors were in. But...they were shipped out, to Syria. Yes, they were shipped out to Syria.
How do I know this? Let's put together the puzzle, and then get to the reason why I'm making this post.
One, Colin Powell's presentation to the Un involved a recording of two top-level Iraq military officers. In it they wondered if something was "gone" yet. I heard the tape. Definitely the case. Now, just what were they talking about?
Two, there has been evidence for some time of Saddam replacing his border patrol agents with special agents and shipments of something crossing the border. What do you think that something was?
And finally, the real evidentiary stuff that is the reason for my post:
Former Iraqi General Georges Sada, a top military advisor to Saddam Hussein and top military officer in the former Iraqi military, was on Hannity and Colmes last night. He was Number Two in the air force, and has just recently come to the US (two weeks ago), and has recently published a new book entitled Saddam's Secrets, which lays down the whole story of WMDs in full.
In this interview he talked about something in his book: WMDs.
I am going to directly quote the good general now, from the interview. In order to watch it yourself, visit www.foxnews.com. Go to their video stream stuff on the right, or find the Hannity and Colmes page and go from there.
In the video window, find Hannity and Colmes and you will see the interview right there.
I now quote General Sada, and questions as asked by Sean Hannity and Bob Beckel:
| The Interview wrote: | Hannity: ...But some people say they were destroyed. Did he still have them leading up to the invasion?
Sada: No, we had a very good organization that Saddam [had] created to show some of them, but to continue to hide--
Hannity: So we had them. Where were they? And were they moved, and where?
Sada: Well, up to the year 2002, 2002, in the summer, they were in Iraq. And after that, when Saddam realized that the inspectors were coming on the first of November, and the Americans [were] coming, so he took the advantage of a natural disaster that happened in Syria--a dam was broken--so he, uh, he announced to the world that he was going to make an air bridge--
Hannity: You know for a fact he moved these weapons to Syria.
Sada: Yes.
Hannity: How do you know that?
Sada: I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi air that are my friends and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria.
Beckel: How were they moved?
Sada: They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, moved to Syria.
....
Beckel: So the Syrian government knows exactly where these weapons are today?
Sada: I think so because I am sure that these weapons have landed in Demascus. Where could they have gone? |
He talks about how there were no nuclear weapons, but that was not, unlike with Tony Blair, President Bush's main argument. His was that there were WMDs--and there were. There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq until the summer of 2002, shortly before the Un inspectors returned.
What say you. oberon. Are you going to apologize and retract your statements essentially calling the President a liar and accusing him of intentionally misleading us into war?
With this account here, how can it be denied that Iraq had WMDs, as Kerry said, as Clinton said, as Gore said, as Kennedy said, and as Hillary said--and almost all the others? Why is it that so many liberals and democrats accuse this president of lying about and misleading us to war with Iraq?
It is incredibly wrong for them to continue to have the audacity to do this...It sickens me, really.
And hmmm...I wonder why you won't get General Sada on the Today Show or CNN or a program like that, and it has to be Fox News--which actually gives a truly fair portrayal--as well as talk radio who discusses this general. Why? Hmmm...
Anyways, so, oberon. There's the answer to your question as to why weapons inspectors didn't find WMDs in Iraq. They were shipped out. That is why I never conceded that it was definite that WMDs weren't there, but still had the inclination to believe it. Given, I began to doubt it as time went by, but now...now I'm entirely convinced. WMDs were in Iraq, but were shipped to Syria before it was too late. I've been right all along.
So, what say you, oberon and everyone else--those who are for and those who are opposed to the war?
And what say you about whether or not the war was justified? Was it justified, and if so, even moreso?
We cannot pull out of Iraq now, and we must know and present that WMDs were there, but were shipped out. President Bush needs to make that clear and retract his admittance of a mistake leading to the war. And he needs to put pressure on Demascus to hand them over.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:54 pm |
|
Actually, Kyle Reese sent me the link to an article of the NY Sun newspaper which interviewed Sada and did a story about him. So far that is the only media outlet I've yet heard of, other than Fox News, to break the story. Good for them, and thanks to Mr. Reese for pointing that out, because I now have an article on it to quote here:
| Quote: | Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
By IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 26, 2006
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.
"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."
Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find those weapons."
The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war. And even the accusations that they are there could step up international pressure on the government in Damascus. That government, led by Bashar Assad, is already facing a U.N. investigation over its alleged role in the assassination of a former prime minister of Lebanon. The Bush administration has criticized Syria for its support of terrorism and its failure to cooperate with the U.N. investigation.
The State Department recently granted visas for self-proclaimed opponents of Mr. Assad to attend a "Syrian National Council" meeting in Washington scheduled for this weekend, even though the attendees include communists, Baathists, and members of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood group to the exclusion of other, more mainstream groups.
Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops.
"I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust each other. We are friends as pilots," Mr. Sada said of the two pilots. He declined to disclose their names, saying they are concerned for their safety. But he said they are now employed by other airlines outside Iraq.
The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel." The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.
The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002.
"Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada said. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."
Mr. Sada said that the Iraqi official responsible for transferring the weapons was a cousin of Saddam Hussein named Ali Hussein al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali." The Syrian official responsible for receiving them was a cousin of Bashar Assad who is known variously as General Abu Ali, Abu Himma, or Zulhimawe.
Short of discovering the weapons in Syria, those seeking to validate Mr. Sada's claim independently will face difficulty. His book contains a foreword by a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, David Eberly, who was a prisoner of war in Iraq during the first Gulf War and who vouches for Mr. Sada, who once held him captive, as "an honest and honorable man."
In his visit to the Sun yesterday, Mr. Sada was accompanied by Terry Law, the president of a Tulsa, Oklahoma based Christian humanitarian organization called World Compassion. Mr. Law said he has known Mr. Sada since 2002, lived in his house in Iraq and had Mr. Sada as a guest in his home in America. "Do I believe this man? Yes," Mr. Law said. "It's been solid down the line and everything checked out."
Said Mr. Law, "This is not a publicity hound. This is a man who wants peace putting his family on the line."
Mr. Sada acknowledged that the disclosures about transfers of weapons of mass destruction are "a very delicate issue." He said he was afraid for his family. "I am sure the terrorists will not like it. The Saddamists will not like it," he said.
He thanked the American troops. "They liberated the country and the nation. It is a liberation force. They did a great job," he said. "We have been freed."
He said he had not shared his story until now with any American officials. "I kept everything secret in my heart," he said. But he is scheduled to meet next week in Washington with Senators Sessions and Inhofe, Republicans of, respectively, Alabama and Oklahoma. Both are members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The book also says that on the eve of the first Gulf War, Saddam was planning to use his air force to launch a chemical weapons attack on Israel.
When, during an interview with the Sun in April 2004, Vice President Cheney was asked whether he thought that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria, Mr. Cheney replied only that he had seen such reports.
An article in the Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that in an appearance on Israel's Channel 2 on December 23, 2002, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated, "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria." The allegation was denied by the Syrian government at the time as "completely untrue," and it attracted scant American press attention, coming as it did on the eve of the Christmas holiday.
The Syrian ruling party and Saddam Hussein had in common the ideology of Baathism, a mixture of Nazism and Marxism.
Syria is one of only eight countries that has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty that obligates nations not to stockpile or use chemical weapons. Syria's chemical warfare program, apart from any weapons that may have been received from Iraq, has long been the source of concern to America, Israel, and Lebanon. In March 2004, the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying, "Damascus has an active CW development and testing program that relies on foreign suppliers for key controlled chemicals suitable for producing CW."
The CIA's Iraq Survey Group acknowledged in its September 30, 2004, "Comprehensive Report," "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war. Reports of such actions exist, but we have not yet been able to investigate this possibility thoroughly."
Mr. Sada is an unusual figure for an Iraqi general as he is a Christian and was not a member of the Baath Party. He now directs the Iraq operations of the Christian humanitarian organization, World Compassion.
Source |
Read up on that, eh? Saddam didn't have WMDs? Hah!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Kyle Reese
Cadet Gunnery Sergeant
Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Posts: 5672
Location: The United States of America
|
| Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:01 pm |
|
Glad I was able to help, RM 
Edit: I just watched the video, and I laughed when Hannity said "Wonder if the mainstream media will pick up on your comments." at the end.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:29 am |
|
Does no one have anything to comment about this? I mean, it's a big deal, General Sada speaking it out, and General Sada saying what he said.
I would especially like to read the opinions/perspective of Link and oberon. 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:14 am |
|
I believe there was WMDS over there. Saddam made sure the WMDS was sent to another country. There is no doubt about it.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:55 pm |
|
I have always believed Saddam had WMD's (especially the chem weapons). And I think he's so crazy that much of that stuff was secreted in Iraq in the belief that he would somehow remain in or regain power and put them to use.
Have any of you ever read "The Secret of Santa Vitoria"?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:35 pm |
|
Nope. But I don't believe they were in Iraq since 2002. I believe they've been in Syria, and won't be found in Iraq.
But still. Saddam had WMDs.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
