| Author |
Message |
Brightstar82
Rear Admiral
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 4394
Location: A Borg Cube....Where Else?
|
 Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:08 pm Iraq shuts down borders ahead of election. |
|
| Quote: | BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- With parliamentary elections just days away, Iraq has closed its international borders and imposed a nighttime curfew around those boundaries, Iraq's interior minister said Sunday.
"The international crossing borders and the borders and passageways for travelers between Iraq and Syria will be closed with the exception of the commercial trucks authorized by the Iraqi government," Minister Bayan Jabr said. "We didn't only close the Syrian borders, we closed all the borders."
Jabr said there is a 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew in the "demilitarized zone" along the borders, a restriction in place until the end of the month.
Iraqis are scheduled to go to the polls Thursday to elect 275 members to four-year terms in the National Assembly. Its members will choose the president, prime minister and Cabinet.
Jabr told reporters the government expected "clean and even elections" and would not allow any interference. Authorities hoped the border closing and curfew would help with that.
"We have a security plan for each city which will guarantee the transfer of the ballot boxes safely to the electoral commission," he said. "We have security people watching this, and these people are responsible for preventing fraud."
Iraq and U.S. officials have said that defeating the insurgency will come through political means, not through military operations, therefore it is important to get Sunni Arabs -- who make up a large portion of the insurgency and between 15 and 20 percent of the population -- involved.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad predicted very large numbers of Sunnis -- including some from the ranks of the insurgency -- would vote.
"That is really the single most important development of the past several months politically," he said. "Sunnis seem to be developing confidence in the political process. They believe that their grievances can be dealt with politically."
"If they don't get disappointed, I think this could be a very positive development that over time could result in isolating the terrorists and reducing the violence here," Khalilzad said.
Sunnis largely boycotted January's election for the transitional National Assembly. When the constitution was ratified in October, more Sunnis voted, and Khalilzad said Sunday they are a potentially powerful minority.
"They will have some 40 to 55 seats in the next assembly and in the coalition building that will have to take place they will be important players," Khalilzad said.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, downplayed the significance of the election, however, saying it was less "a turning point" and more "a continuation of moving towards a safer, a stronger, a more democratic, a more prosperous Iraq that operates under the rule of law."
"It is a good neighbor that focuses and protects the rights of the individuals in that country," he told reporters. "It's going to be a long road, and we will continue to fight until we have victory in Iraq and the victory of that goal is a safe, prosperous and democratic Iraq."
Frist predicted a high voter turnout, and Sen. Joe Biden, the minority leader of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said that was the key to successful elections.
"But that's only the first step," the Connecticut Democrat said on ABC's "This Week." "The real deal here is the constitution. Four to six months later, there's going to be a vote on a constitution. That is either going to be a document of division, or a document of unity."
"If it ends up being viewed as a document of division, where the Sunnis think they're out of the deal, then I think we're in real trouble," he said.
Hostage families await news
Family and friends of four Western humanitarian workers held hostage in Iraq were waiting with growing concern on Sunday as a deadline to kill them passed without word from the kidnappers.
A group calling itself the Swords of Justice Brigades threatened to execute the men on Thursday unless all Iraqi prisoners were released. The group later extended its deadline to Saturday.
Iraq's Interior Ministry said it had no information about the hostages, The Associated Press reported, and there were no indications that envoys from Canada and Britain had managed to contact the kidnappers.
"We're definitely hungry to hear something, anything at this point," Ed Loney, younger brother of Canadian hostage James Loney, 41, told AP.
The other three are Canadian Harmeet Sooden, 32; Norman Kember, 74, of London and American Tom Fox, 54. (Watch Iraqis praying for the release of the hostages -- 2:02)
The most recently released video of the men shows Kember and Fox blindfolded with their hands chained together. In it, Fox blames the American and British presence in Iraq for his plight.
"The only way that we can all be free is for the American and British soldiers to leave Iraq as soon as possible," he said.
Fox's daughter, Katharine, issued a statement Saturday, saying that she and her father believe the Iraqi people have legitimate concerns about the U.S. presence in Iraq, but "these grievances, however, will not be resolved by taking my father's life." (Watch a captive's daughter address his kidnappers -- 1:01)
Katharine Fox also seemed to say that her father would reject any attempts by U.S. troops to rescue him by force.
"My father is not willing to sacrifice his dedication to the Iraqi people for any armed assistance from the U.S. government," she said.
Copyright 2005 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report. |
www.cnn.com
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:42 pm |
|
No offense, but if they could shut down their borders, how did so many terrorists get in?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:56 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | No offense, but if they could shut down their borders, how did so many terrorists get in? |
And how did the weapons leave the counrty!? Yeah.. I think we both know the answers to our questions.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:17 pm |
|
If they did, Saddam replaced his border patrol agents with special agents and sent truckloads of shipments across the Syrian border with Iraq. This was just before the war started. Mere days before it was started two superior Iraqi military officers were recorded as talking about the removal of SOMETHING, and whether or not it had been shipped away. And the conversation appeared to be about WMDs.
So, yeah, if they were shipped out, there's your answer.
-------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
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:39 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | If they did, Saddam replaced his border patrol agents with special agents and sent truckloads of shipments across the Syrian border with Iraq. This was just before the war started. Mere days before it was started two superior Iraqi military officers were recorded as talking about the removal of SOMETHING, and whether or not it had been shipped away. And the conversation appeared to be about WMDs.
So, yeah, if they were shipped out, there's your answer. |
Thanks, but I was being sarcastic. There were never weapons of mass destruction, something that the UN ruled out upon inspection. Thanks for that bit of useful information though.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:56 pm |
|
They never ruled it out. Read a little bit more, will you? Resolution 1441 ring any bells?
And it's only useless because you're so anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war. It's NOT useless.
-------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
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:05 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | They never ruled it out. Read a little bit more, will you? Resolution 1441 ring any bells?
And it's only useless because you're so anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war. It's NOT useless. |
Uhh.. did anyone anywhere find any weapons of mass destruction? No. So the people who blindly support the current American regime assume that they were got rid of because they couldn't possibly have made a mistake. Who's in denial? You are, you are!
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:15 pm |
|
Regime? Regime? My dear, misguided friend. He is far from the leader of a regime. FAR from it. I seem to remember an election back on, oh, November 2nd, 2004 in which the leader of this "regime" won. Don't you remember, or do you forget that? Far from a regime, and that's just horrifying to hear you say that. You sound just like this woman I called when I was doing phone calls for the Republican party, who talked about the "Bush Regime" and crap like that. Oh, yeah, that's a REAAALLY nice and good thing to say. Very, very hateful for such a man that does not deserve such treatment.
Let me ask you, Mr. I Hate Bush: Do you hate Saddam Hussein, who raped, tortured, and murdered thousands upon thousands of his own people?
You are SOOOO filled with hate, as that paragraph says. You choose to ignore anything that might prove you wrong. I have said it in the past and will say it again: it looks like we MAY have made a mistake, judging from what we know now. However, there is still the possibility that WMDs were in Iraq, and so I am not convinced that they were not. If anyone's in denial of anything here, it's you. Clearly. You're in denial of the possiblity that WMDs may have been in Iraq, and you're in denial of the fact that we're winning the Iraq War and that the Iraqis are overwhelmingly glad that we are there and that good things are happening there. You're in denial for all of those things, so if anyone's in denial, it's you 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:19 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Regime? Regime? My dear, misguided friend. He is far from the leader of a regime. FAR from it. I seem to remember an election back on, oh, November 2nd, 2004 in which the leader of this "regime" won. Don't you remember, or do you forget that? Far from a regime, and that's just horrifying to hear you say that. You sound just like this woman I called when I was doing phone calls for the Republican party, who talked about the "Bush Regime" and crap like that. Oh, yeah, that's a REAAALLY nice and good thing to say. Very, very hateful for such a man that does not deserve such treatment.
Let me ask you, Mr. I Hate Bush: Do you hate Saddam Hussein, who raped, tortured, and murdered thousands upon thousands of his own people?
You are SOOOO filled with hate, as that paragraph says. You choose to ignore anything that might prove you wrong. I have said it in the past and will say it again: it looks like we MAY have made a mistake, judging from what we know now. However, there is still the possibility that WMDs were in Iraq, and so I am not convinced that they were not. If anyone's in denial of anything here, it's you. Clearly. You're in denial of the possiblity that WMDs may have been in Iraq, and you're in denial of the fact that we're winning the Iraq War and that the Iraqis are overwhelmingly glad that we are there and that good things are happening there. You're in denial for all of those things, so if anyone's in denial, it's you |
There is nothing wrong with the word regime, look at the definition.
1. A form of government
2. A government in power; administration:
A prevailing social system or pattern.
The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
It just receives negative conotations for some reason, but it really isn't.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:27 pm |
|
Could you please answer these questions: Did he or did he not italicize the word? What is the taken definition of the word? What does it imply for the italicization of the word?
Can't you see what he meant? I can. It's so blatently obvious. I am greatly offended by his statement.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:29 pm |
|
| Quote: | 1. A form of government
2. A government in power; administration:
A prevailing social system or pattern.
The period during which a particular administration or system prevails. |
These are the only definitions for it, so I don't see how it could matter if he italicized it or not, since even if he wants it to, it can't have another meaning. Anyhow, back on topic.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:34 pm |
|
Please answer my question, Oberon:
| Quote: | | Let me ask you, Mr. I Hate Bush: Do you hate Saddam Hussein, who raped, tortured, and murdered thousands upon thousands of his own people? |
-------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
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:42 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Please answer my question, Oberon:
| Quote: | | Let me ask you, Mr. I Hate Bush: Do you hate Saddam Hussein, who raped, tortured, and murdered thousands upon thousands of his own people? |
|
I don't hate (or at least I try my best not to). I may have said that I hated Bush previously, but it was most likely in the heat of a debate. I don't honestly hate either Bush or Saddam. I do dislike Bush nearly equally because his lies and actions have directly affected myself and others that I know but Saddam has a deep black spot in my heart and mind as well. Is that a sufficient answer for you?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:48 pm |
|
You've said it a few times, and when you said it last, it wasn't in the heat of any debate, as I recall. It was your first post of the day or something. Judging from your past posts, and right there, I can safely say that I can decipher that you REALLY DO hate the President, as you said in the past, but you won't admit it. But I digress there.
Saying that Saddam and Bush are equal...that's just disgusting. Overly disgusting. I'm sorry, but it is. Man orders the torture, rape, and brutal murders of thousands upon thousands of people. Other man sends troops to war to DEFEND the country from war. Yeah, they're the same alright.
Exactly. No, they're NOT. You are so out on the fringe and so radical and so extreme and so--dare I say it--hateful of the President that you actually essentially equate him to Saddam. Next you'll equate him to Hitler. Oh, that's nice--real nice.
I just can't take it anymore. I don't understand you. I don't understand you at all. I understand most liberals--liberals like my friends--but you...no, no, I don't understand you, and I can just tell what you feel about the president deep inside.
But you know what? You're going to argue that continuously, so let's just drop it. As a matter of fact, I'm dropping all the Iraq debates with you because you're just so out there, so extreme...I just can't take it. I've never debated a liberal as extreme as you--and I've debated a good amount of rather extreme liberals, the equivalent of Ann Coulter of the Left, but none of them as extreme as you.
So, you need not respond to this post. I'm done arguing in this topic and the Saddam topic--at least with you. Nothing against you in terms of singling you out, it's just that I can't stand it anymore. I just can't argue with you any more, you're so, so out there...
I digress. I won't respond to a response, so you need not respond to this. I'm done. Good night.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:53 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | You've said it a few times, and when you said it last, it wasn't in the heat of any debate, as I recall. It was your first post of the day or something. Judging from your past posts, and right there, I can safely say that I can decipher that you REALLY DO hate the President, as you said in the past, but you won't admit it. |
Don't put words in other people's mouths. He clearly stated he doesn't hate anyone. That's that. You can 'decipher' all you want, but keep it to yourself, and stop putting words in other peoples mouths.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:58 pm |
|
*sighs* You're right. I'll keep opinions like that to myself.
My apologies, Oberon, for saying how I feel there. Some things are best left contained, if possible. 
Oh, and btw. As much as I dislike and disagree with your opinions, I do respect them, overall.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:19 pm |
|
| oberon wrote: |
Thanks, but I was being sarcastic. There were never weapons of mass destruction, something that the UN ruled out upon inspection. Thanks for that bit of useful information though. |
1. The Kurds were gassed. That is an established, undisputed fact.
2. The gas used on the Kurds is classified as a "weapon of mass destruction".
3. There is no proof that the gas that was not used up in gassing the Kurds was ever destroyed, nor any evidence that it left the country.
Ipso facto, there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there is evidence that there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:29 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | oberon wrote: |
Thanks, but I was being sarcastic. There were never weapons of mass destruction, something that the UN ruled out upon inspection. Thanks for that bit of useful information though. |
1. The Kurds were gassed. That is an established, undisputed fact.
2. The gas used on the Kurds is classified as a "weapon of mass destruction".
3. There is no proof that the gas that was not used up in gassing the Kurds was ever destroyed, nor any evidence that it left the country.
Ipso facto, there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there is evidence that there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. |
The main premise for going into the Iraq massacre was to find large scale nuclear/chemical weapons (supposedly). The US was so concerned about possibly being attacked or that another country was going to be attacked that they decided to start a war. There have been no weapons found by the UN or the US since the beginning of this mess. Yet you still hold fast to that, what seems to me, hope that there are or were weapons. Don't like admitting you're mistaken, huh?
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:42 pm |
|
| oberon wrote: | | webtaz99 wrote: | | oberon wrote: |
Thanks, but I was being sarcastic. There were never weapons of mass destruction, something that the UN ruled out upon inspection. Thanks for that bit of useful information though. |
1. The Kurds were gassed. That is an established, undisputed fact.
2. The gas used on the Kurds is classified as a "weapon of mass destruction".
3. There is no proof that the gas that was not used up in gassing the Kurds was ever destroyed, nor any evidence that it left the country.
Ipso facto, there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there is evidence that there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. |
The main premise for going into the Iraq massacre was to find large scale nuclear/chemical weapons (supposedly). The US was so concerned about possibly being attacked or that another country was going to be attacked that they decided to start a war. There have been no weapons found by the UN or the US since the beginning of this mess. Yet you still hold fast to that, what seems to me, hope that there are or were weapons. Don't like admitting you're mistaken, huh? |
Do you deny that the Kurds were gassed by Saddam?
Do you deny that chemical weapons are "weapons of mass destruction"?
Do you have evidence that Saddam destroyed his remaining gas stockpiles? Or that they left the country?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:59 pm |
|
I remember a speech where president Bush outlined three reasons for going into Iraq, WMD was only one of them.
Fact is, Saddam has the tools to both make, and distribute WMD, and he had weapons that he was supposed to have turned over, Al Samoud missiles, Scuds, ect...
So let's go over this; Bush's 3 reasons to go into Iraq:
1.) Spread Democracy; DONE, Sadam, Uday, and Qusay are gone! Look at the news today, Iraqis dacing in the streets after voting; everything going good there.
2.) Pinpointed Terrorists on their turf; DONE, Al-Qaeda was held up in Iraq, this is where Zarquai and his Henchmen were, and this is where we are fighting them. We delapitated Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, so we moved to their next front; Iraq. (Whether or not connected with Hussein's government, they were there!)
3.) WMD; PROBABLE, We KNOW Hussein HAD the weapons, and we KNOW he violated international treaties involving them. We FOUND some WMD materials, we FOUND the equipment to make them. There's evidence that weapons were shipped to Domascus as the war started. WE've found illegal missiles in Iraq, both normal, and marked for loading with chemicals. Any faulty intellegence was accepted worldwide as true by every major reputable intellegence agency including France, Russia, and the UN.
What's to dspute; seems to me, the left is so flawed that they need to attack the ONE reason for war (of at least three) that was even slightly flawed. Iraq has been a fantastic success; probably (aside from maybe Granada) the most successful military campaign in US history.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:04 pm |
|
The resolution, if I recall correctly, for action against Iraq stated TWENTY-ONE REASONS for going into Iraq. Those three were the main, and they've mostly been accomplished.
And webtaz, there actually is evidence, as I've said before, of WMDs being shipped out in the few days before the war--showing that it's likely that he DID have WMDs. So, it actually helps your argument.
Good points LB, taz.
-------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
