Iraq General Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Iraq has pulled the "license" of contract firm Blackwater USA, related to their response to an attack on a State Dept motorcade. Iraq is claiming that Blackwater contractors killed 8 civilians and injured another 13. This is just another chapter in the ongoing tension between Iraq and these contract firms, and seems to make it likely that those firms will have a harder and harder time doing business in the country.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

CNN article regarding the Blackwater issue calls it a "banning", and further states, interestingly, that the Iraqi judicial system apparently does not have the authority to prosecute the contractors. They are apparently protected as if they were soldiers (except without all those silly expectations of responsibility and stuff).

 

[Texsox]

I'm uneasy about State Department employees being protected by a private security firm. In fact the whole private security firm thing leaves me worried.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm uneasy about State Department employees being protected by a private security firm. In fact the whole private security firm thing leaves me worried.

You should read the book Blackwater. Try to cut through the editorial B.S., but the actual factual information and accounts in there, alone, make it worth the read.

 

[Balta1701]

I'm uneasy about State Department employees being protected by a private security firm. In fact the whole private security firm thing leaves me worried.

Since this "Ban"...all state department employees, in fact basically every government employee other than the U.S. soldiers...have been issued orders not to leave the Green Zone. Supposedly this even includes people working for the CIA.

[NorthSideSox72]

Since this "Ban"...all state department employees, in fact basically every government employee other than the U.S. soldiers...have been issued orders not to leave the Green Zone. Supposedly this even includes people working for the CIA.

That's because they decided to rely very, very heavily on Blackwater (and other privates) for security. It was, in essence, their way of avoiding a draft. And now they are adrift, because they elected to put their security in the hands of private firms not under their direct control.

 

[Balta1701]

That's because they decided to rely very, very heavily on Blackwater (and other privates) for security. It was, in essence, their way of avoiding a draft. And now they are adrift, because they elected to put their security in the hands of private firms not under their direct control.

And it goes beyond that even. As pointed out on the Colbert Report last night...when a U.S. city found itself under water recently...and the government decided it was totally inept...who did they call? Blackwater.

[NorthSideSox72]

And it goes beyond that even. As pointed out on the Colbert Report last night...when a U.S. city found itself under water recently...and the government decided it was totally inept...who did they call? Blackwater.

Blackwater and other similar firms were scrutinized a little, particularly after the awful incident in Fallujah in '04. But then they fell off the radar. I think we're about to see these arrangements really get the spotlight in the coming weeks, and I think it may be the straw that breaks the "stay the course" back. We may even actually see Congress do something real, or, Bush might actually start implementing an exit. I wouldn't bet on it just yet, but I could see this getting that ugly, maybe.

 

[kapkomet]

Not specifically this, because there's a pretty stinky rat here, but I do have to ask:

 

Why is everything so "conspiracatorial" (yes, I made that up) in nature? And it's a serious question.

 

 

[Gregory Pratt]

Not specifically this, because there's a pretty stinky rat here, but I do have to ask:

 

Why is everything so "conspiracatorial" (yes, I made that up) in nature? And it's a serious question.

 

When you're assessing government or acts of great wrong, you've got to determine:

 

is it just incompetence?

or evil?

 

"What BLANK knew, and when they knew it," is always, always, always key. It always will be, in all matters.

 

Someone gives you an STD? "When did they know that they had it?" is key. Doesn't make your STD go away but it filters out malicious intent and just plain irresponsibility.

People get AIDS from Red Cross blood? "What did the Red Cross know, and when, and what did they do?"

 

Besides that, when people know something, their response to that is key to determine.

 

If someone, say, decides, "s***, this is embarrassing, let's not tell anyone," that's bad. If someone says, "Let's not tell anyone but try and fix it," it's still bad. Few people go out and say, "Hey, we're polluting the water in violation of EPA laws. Didn't know it until now, but now we do, so we'll fix it!"

 

Usually people cover up their wrongs, whether they be small children or big children (bureaucrats).

 

That's why everything is "conspiracy," which is a word with an awful connotation that it doesn't deserve. Sure, there are f***ing people looking at the New England Patriots 2002 Super Bowl game plan to prove that Bush knew about 9/11, but "what Blank knew and when" is always key.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not specifically this, because there's a pretty stinky rat here, but I do have to ask:

 

Why is everything so "conspiracatorial" (yes, I made that up) in nature? And it's a serious question.

Because if its a conspiracy, its more evil. And more Hollywood.

 

I hope you weren't referring to my point about Blackwater - there is nothing at all conspiratorial about that. Its out there for everyone to see.

 

[kapkomet]

Because if its a conspiracy, its more evil. And more Hollywood.

 

I hope you weren't referring to my point about Blackwater - there is nothing at all conspiratorial about that. Its out there for everyone to see.

I said that already. And I specifically said not to this point in particular. But it was a serious question. There seems like there's "evil" intentions all over the place - never noble - always has some politicized steaming pile of poo attached to it - and I would like to know why.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I said that already. And I specifically said not to this point in particular. But it was a serious question. There seems like there's "evil" intentions all over the place - never noble - always has some politicized steaming pile of poo attached to it - and I would like to know why.

Well, you are the one who usually posts something like "THEY ALL SUCK" in regards to politicians. And that is often right, but I'd say, not always. Even in that slimey world, I think there is the occasional good deed. In my view, politicians almost all start their political careers with the idea of doing some good. Then they realize that 99% of what they do is compromise, pandering or re-election protection. But that 1% of the time, they actually get to stand up for something.

 

[kapkomet]

Well, you are the one who usually posts something like "THEY ALL SUCK" in regards to politicians. And that is often right, but I'd say, not always. Even in that slimey world, I think there is the occasional good deed. In my view, politicians almost all start their political careers with the idea of doing some good. Then they realize that 99% of what they do is compromise, pandering or re-election protection. But that 1% of the time, they actually get to stand up for something.

I'm honestly not trying to make it a circular discussion - I mean it this time.

 

I agree with the sentiment here - but what happens? And why does everything become so polarizing?

 

Is it power? Greed? Selfishness?

 

 

[Texsox]

We demand partisanship from our elected leaders. It's like sports. If it's "our team" we defend them and try to get the other side. So they band together in support of the party. The officials also need the party backing (money, experts) to get elected.

[kapkomet]

We demand partisanship from our elected leaders. It's like sports. If it's "our team" we defend them and try to get the other side. So they band together in support of the party. The officials also need the party backing (money, experts) to get elected.

Here's the truth of the matter. I could give a rat's ass less what party you are, as long as you stand for what people really want. The real problem is everyone wants to push beyond the limits to polarize the other side (which is what you're alluding to). It's NOT "our team", it's OUR COUNTRY. Most of these assholes (on both sides) seem to forget that, and us every day Americans get stuck in the middle. That's partly why Obama doesn't have to say a damn thing but "People are tired of politics as usual" and he'll get 20% of the vote just on that alone.

 

It really bothers me that the Democrats are used by factions like Al Queda to pull us apart. It really bothers me that the Republicans are used by people to promote racial divides. Neither are true, but the sound bites and damage they cause are damn near irrepairable. People all over are too quick to judge a story without knowing it all - I see it every day here with the posts. That's why I counter with hypberbolic bulls*** most of the time, because it's simply asinine in my mind that people (on both sides again) just run for the nearest camera or newspaper guy to get their power trip.

 

As technology and time move forward, people become lazier. It's really sad in an "information age" that we live in that people are becoming LESS educated rather then more, simply because people can't study enough to really understand issues - so it all becomes "conspiracy" and "the other side sucks more!". Where does it end?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

So now Blackwater is, project by project, resuming duties in Iraq. An "industry source" says they will be back to full work by Saturday.

 

Since the US government cannot function over there without these guys, this was I suppose inevitable. but its interesting that the article doesn't mention how it is they got past Iraq's request. Did they just ignore it, despite the fact that Iraq supposedly controls the country? Or was some compromise made? The State Dept said they are putting some sort of task force on to investigate the matter generally. Like that's going to go anywhere.

 

I really hope this wakes people up. We are so militarily ovewhelmed over there that they cease to function in any significant way without these private security firms. Who thinks its a good idea to put that much of our fortunes in the hands of people the government does not directly control?

 

If this was done without the consent of the notional Iraqi government, things could still get very ugly over this.

 

[Texsox]

Kap, I agree with everything you said. I've said all along that conservatives and liberals should clean up their own houses. When some elected official becomes an assbag, dump him fast and make him an example. Instead, we start thge spin machine and protect "our guy". Not all the time, but way to often.

 

As far as messages getting hijacked by people you don't want, it can't be helped. Skinheads vote GOP, that doesn't make GOP wrong. We shouldn't want peace because they want peace!? Look at Israel and their neighbors, we see how far that gets. And aren't terrorists using the "America wants war"? as a rallying cry? So the GOP is being used as well.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, in answer to the earlier-posed question... it appears the U.S. did not strike a compromise with the Iraqi government over the Blackwater issue, because Iraq is now filing criminal charges against those involved in the melee. And those contractors are still in Iraq. One wonders, if the Iraqis actually manage to arrest one or more of them... what does the U.S. do at that point?

 

[kapkomet]

President Bollinger, yesterday:

 

A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands, and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy. Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi'a militia targeting and killing US troops? And, finally, Iran's nuclear program and international sanctions: This week the United Nations Security Council is contemplating expanding sanctions for a third time because of your government's refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program. You continue to defy this world body by claiming the right to develop a peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors. Last week, French president Sarkozy made clear his lost patience with your stall tactics and even Russia and China have shown concern. Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification, in defiance of agreements that you have made with the UN nuclear agency? And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions and threaten to engulf the world in nuclear annihilation?

You know, this amazes me. One of the most liberal colleges in America - and THEY admit everything that our President has been villified for. Quite interesting about the "proxy war" and all of the other mentions that get Bush tramped on. They DO admit it's a war, and some of the (legit) reasons why it's important we stay and take care of things.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

President Bollinger, yesterday:

You know, this amazes me. One of the most liberal colleges in America - and THEY admit everything that our President has been villified for. Quite interesting about the "proxy war" and all of the other mentions that get Bush tramped on. They DO admit it's a war, and some of the (legit) reasons why it's important we stay and take care of things.

Huh? They "admit everything that our President has been vilified for"? I do not see a single point in that exerpt that Bush has stated and been vilified for. Not one. Show me one sentence in there that states support for a Bush policy which has been vilified for. Who has been vilifying Bush for saying that Iran is supplying against the U.S. in Iraq? As far as I have seen, everyone admits that is the case.

 

By the way, his whole speech is in that video link that Balta put in the thread about this. And its worth a viewing, its a great opening.

 

[kapkomet]

Huh? They "admit everything that our President has been vilified for"? I do not see a single point in that exerpt that Bush has stated and been vilified for. Not one. Show me one sentence in there that states support for a Bush policy which has been vilified for. Who has been vilifying Bush for saying that Iran is supplying against the U.S. in Iraq? As far as I have seen, everyone admits that is the case.

 

By the way, his whole speech is in that video link that Balta put in the thread about this. And its worth a viewing, its a great opening.

His viewpoint that we need to stay there to fight the war on terror is what I equate to being "villified".

 

[NorthSideSox72]

His viewpoint that we need to stay there to fight the war on terror is what I equate to being "villified".

And where did Mr. Bollinger say we should do that?

 

[kapkomet]

And where did Mr. Bollinger say we should do that?

I didn't say that Mr. Bollinger said it. I said that Mr. Bollinger made the case for why we are there and that Iraq IS a war on terror - a point that quite a few Democrats don't want to concede... you know, the ones who say "it was all for oil, and Bush lied, and people died" and all the other cutesy stuff. Bush gets ridiculed for saying that we need to stick tough on the war on terror on a daily basis somewhere either in the media or by Congressional peckerheads looking for a soundbyte.

 

Speaking of soundbites, I'm going back to my favorite thread...

[NorthSideSox72]

I didn't say that Mr. Bollinger said it. I said that Mr. Bollinger made the case for why we are there and that Iraq IS a war on terror - a point that quite a few Democrats don't want to concede... you know, the ones who say "it was all for oil, and Bush lied, and people died" and all the other cutesy stuff. Bush gets ridiculed for saying that we need to stick tough on the war on terror on a daily basis somewhere either in the media or by Congressional peckerheads looking for a soundbyte.

 

Speaking of soundbites, I'm going back to my favorite thread...

You keep turning one point into something else. Iraq was, and still is, a distraction from the war on terror. It is only not a part of it because they created such havoc in Iraq. So the one who say it was not about terror are right - but now, Iraq has become a battle ground in that fight. So no, Mr. Bollinger made no such case.