Don't Shoot The Messenger

[TerryKickstrom]

Here's a few notes on the Middle East that passed across my desk which indicate that this war is not going to be easy or short.

- On the news this morning in Syria there has been a mass attempt at obtaining temporary travel documents to Iraq by 300,000 men who had fled the country during Desert Storm. They now want to go back and fight for where their "souls have been left". In light of the U.S. attack on Iraq the Syrian government is expediting their paperwork.

- The Syrian government [or was it Jordan?] has made the forecast that if the U.S. attack is successful in ousting Saddam then their problems are only starting, not ending. They are predicting another Vietnam type resistance where every day U.S. forces will be hit by the "underground units" until they finally leave the Middle East.

- The last two big notes; the U.S. gov't is now ticked off at Russia for supplying nightvision equipment to Saddam, as well as GPS [Global Positioning Systems] jammers that screw up the U.S. observations of Iraq, and the U.S. gov't is angry at Canada for not backing them up in this U.N. unsanctioned attack on Iraq.

So we observe that the American Government is now pissed at:

France, North Korea, Russia, Canada, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan ... who am I missing? What is this, an international temper tantrum?

Vote for peace for everyone's sake and get back to talking and working together instead of trying to blow each others' heads off.

"Just another 2cents in an already full media piggy bank."

PS Don't shoot the messenger.

Good luck and God Speed to everyone,
TK

 

[Linedrive]

You must work for one of the liberal newspapers that are already wondering what is taking so long. This is laughable, evident by the press conference held today by Ari Fletcher. The reporters were dying for answers to "why so long" and "the plans changed." Just one question after another, it's been 5 days for crying out loud. If the President wanted, he could end the war in 3 seconds, so settle down everyone...nobody should've thought this was going to be a cakewalk.

 

[Lost Cause]

Jaundiced information......

I consider the sources, and really don't care what the socialists have to say about anything to do with this operation. History will bear out this action, pro or con. (It'll depend on who's writing it)
You okay, Joe!

 

[Zmey]

Thanx a lot man... they hate me already as it is

 

[plasticman33]

You must work for one of the liberal newspapers that are already wondering what is taking so long. This is laughable, evident by the press conference held today by Ari Fletcher. The reporters were dying for answers to "why so long" and "the plans changed." Just one question after another, it's been 5 days for crying out loud. If the President wanted, he could end the war in 3 seconds, so settle down everyone...nobody should've thought this was going to be a cakewalk.

Exactly!!! It's an 'instant gratification' media, nothing exciting today, what's taking so long!! If the war were not so serious, they'd be laughable!

 

[Lost Cause]

BTW-

It's not just the US Government, the American people are seeing the true colors of our former "friends" get used to it.
You okay, Joe!

 

[TerryKickstrom]

Well, I don't work for the Liberals, never been a conservative either. Guess you'd call me kind of independent. Certainly don't work for a newspaper, although I have been paid in the past to write for them. I'm pretty much a peace promoter, instead of a war monger, so I read into stuff from that angle. I also try and respect everyone's views as much as I can {although that can be a little tough when someone is swearing and cursing and not making much sense}.

It's nice to see a few of you folks not taking my head off this time. Last time I posted anything in here about war and peace [no, not Tolstoy] it was like being lynched!

The internet allows for us to post news items or information that each country may not get to hear about because of local publication bans, government interception, time and space in broadcasts and publications, etc.

Regarding the sources for the information I posted; this stuff is from Reuters as filed by independant American and International Journalists on the scene in the Middle East. It's not from the {MBED?} jornalists travelling with the American forces, so it's somewhat unslanted. It just offers a different perspective than what can be found on American television news broadcasts {of which we get tons of the stuff here}.

I read things about "former friendships", "instant gratification" and realize that some of you may have missed the point of the post.

The point is that this is going to cost one hell of a lot more than I think most participants were willing to concede or realize at the beginning and that peace is the only solution. United Global agreement through the U.N. has to be in place in order to stabilize the world, as well as the Middle Eastern Region, and this is not the way to go about arranging the world structure for the future generations of inhabitants.

PS Don't shoot the messenger.

Good luck and God Speed to everyone,
TK

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Re: BTW-

It's not just the US Government, the American people are seeing the true colors of our former "friends" get used to it.
You okay, Joe!

With the old guard (WWII era) on the way out, the new guard doesn't have the same loyalties. We don't have the same world dynamics as we did 10...20...30+ years ago. So yesterday's friends are not neccesarily our friends today.

Resentment and hatred are still brewing in the regular spots though, no real surprise there.

 

[Linedrive]

United Global agreement through the U.N. has to be in place in order to stabilize the world...

The UN is impotent

 

[Jimi]

Don't sweat it, Terry.

This group only talks nasty to those that stand up to them - the arse-kissers that "go along" unquestioningly are waved aside like so much excess baggage.

We haven't had so much attention focussed upon us since we got all those US Diplomats outta Iran, and harboured all those wonderfully appreciative stranded 9/11 airline travellers.


Whiney fuckin' Yanks make me puke - my American FRIENDS on the other hand are some of the closest and most respected that I am previleged to have!

Semper Fi, Assholes - I am, "Always Faithful" to my Country - that has a GOOD percentage of its tiny Navy under Iranian gunsights, as we speak.

OH yeah - LC - you SHOULD know better - I'm pretty disappointed - please save the "knuckleheaded" comments for the 61 Cuber, Eh?

 

[TerryKickstrom]

The UN is impotent

I would tend to agree with that statement right now, only because of the rogue nations which attacked Iraq outside of U.N. agreement, thus weakening the U.N. international position and throwing the global community into a political morass of rhetoric.
The U.S. and Britain, et al, should have stuck with their friends.

PS Don't shoot the messenger.

Good luck and God Speed to everyone,
TK

 

[Linedrive]

I would tend to agree with that statement right now, only because of the rogue nations which attacked Iraq outside of U.N. agreement, thus weakening the U.N. international position and throwing the global community into a political morass of rhetoric.
The U.S. and Britain, et al, should have stuck with their friends.

They US/UK is militarily disarming Iraq per anyone of the 17 UN resolutions passed. Just because other security council members (Russia, France, China) have other vested interests in not seeing this war develop, doesn't mean the US cannot enforce the policy itself.

Korea and Afghanistan come to mind as the only 2 UN sanctioned military operations in the past 50+ years. Every other military action was undertaken outside the UN.

The Victors of Versailles tried to appease Hitler, the United Nations adopted a policy of appeasement towards Milosovic and Hussein. How many millions could have been saved if the western powers interveined on Hitler's plans in 1938, if NATO and the participating forces would've interviened into Bosnia and Kosovo sooner, other than ignoring clear signals of ethenic cleansing taking place on a wide scale.

The United States is not acting unilaterally and this was not a pre-empted strike. They are enforcing the cease fire, UN resolution 660.

 

[Blindinthedark]

They US/UK is militarily disarming Iraq per anyone of the 17 UN resolutions passed. Just because other security council members (Russia, France, China) have other vested interests in not seeing this war develop, doesn't mean the US cannot enforce the policy itself.

Korea and Afghanistan come to mind as the only 2 UN sanctioned military operations in the past 50+ years. Every other military action was undertaken outside the UN.

The Victors of Versailles tried to appease Hitler, the United Nations adopted a policy of appeasement towards Milosovic and Hussein. How many millions could have been saved if the western powers interveined on Hitler's plans in 1938, if NATO and the participating forces would've interviened into Bosnia and Kosovo sooner, other than ignoring clear signals of ethenic cleansing taking place on a wide scale.

The United States is not acting unilaterally and this was not a pre-empted strike. They are enforcing the cease fire, UN resolution 660.

The solution then is to give the UN more power and a real policing force instead of letting nations persue “vigilante” actions other countries.

 

[Just-Legal]

Gah, the UN is in part responsible for the situation in the Middle East with regards to Israel.

But I digress.

I don't think this war is going to be short or easy... And I'll freely admit I didn't want it to start, but now it has I'm of the opinion you HAVE to back your armed forces, if only to keep morale up.

 

[Linedrive]

The solution then is to give the UN more power and a real policing force instead of letting nations persue “vigilante” actions other countries.

Pehaps, if it passes resolutions then it needs to be able to enforce them...otherwise, no credibility and they will never get anyone to comply with anything. Look at the number of veto's that have been used over the years, and I am fully away many of those were America. They can just about never get the 5 permanent members to agree on anything.

 

[Blindinthedark]

Pehaps, if it passes resolutions then it needs to be able to enforce them...otherwise, no credibility and they will never get anyone to comply with anything. Look at the number of veto's that have been used over the years, and I am fully away many of those were America. They can just about never get the 5 permanent members to agree on anything.

It would have to be set up like a democracy. Majority vote.
And with real punitive power and not just sanctions.
No permanent members of the security council. Two 4 years terms consecutive max limit and elections for new members. Why not use some of the better parts of the US system.

I'd sign my name to that.

edited to add
Secratary General is the only one with Veto powers.

 

[Bobmi357]

I
The U.S. and Britain, et al, should have stuck with their friends.

Friends? What friends? When this is all over I, for one, believe the US public will tell the administration who are our friends by voting with our pocketbooks.

I think we are seeing the beginning of a strategic shift in our alliances and wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the US pulls out of Nato and the United Nations, not to mention the cancelling of several long standing defense treaties.

 

[Linedrive]

Just warn me the day

Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia comprise the Security Council

 

[Blindinthedark]

Just warn me the day

Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia comprise the Security Council

You'll be the first we call

 

[Hello_Kitten]

Re: BTW-

It's not just the US Government, the American people are seeing the true colors of our former "friends" get used to it.
You okay, Joe!

Now now, remember not all of us are seeing things this way.

 

[BirdsWife]

Gah, the UN is in part responsible for the situation in the Middle East with regards to Israel.

But I digress.

I don't think this war is going to be short or easy... And I'll freely admit I didn't want it to start, but now it has I'm of the opinion you HAVE to back your armed forces, if only to keep morale up.

I don't think it is necessary to support the war in order to support the troops. I support our soldiers wholheartedly, but I think they should be at home with their families instead of fighting a war that is nothing more than Bush's attempt at payback for his daddy's screwup.

After all, who is going to end up with post-traumatic stress disorder and "Gulf War" illness? Certainly not Georgie Boy.

 

[TerryKickstrom]

The solution then is to give the UN more power and a real policing force instead of letting nations persue “vigilante” actions against other countries.

This I would tend to agree with as well.

AND the suggestion that the U.N. be a 4 year {or whatever term} elected position, however, who would vote? Every country has enough trouble trying to put together an election for their own governments, let alone trying to arrange an international one.

re. the 17 resolutions of the past ... I don't believe any of them said "we'll try and blow you out of the water, kill your leader and bomb the hell out of your country if you don't comply."

re. friends, alliances and pocketbooks .... well .... we'll just have to wait and see who cleans up the mess when all is said and done. Canada is pretty good at putting back together the pieces of countries that have been beat up over the years and then trying to maintain peace, order and humanitarianism. Besides which, Canada and many of the other countries that have chosen not to be involved in the current situation don't have the military might to make much of a difference.

"It'll all work out in the wash" .... as my mother used to say.

PS Don't shoot the messenger.

Good luck and God Speed to everyone,
TK

 

[Bobmi357]

re. friends, alliances and pocketbooks .... well .... we'll just have to wait and see who cleans up the mess when all is said and done. Canada is pretty good at putting back together the pieces of countries that have been beat up over the years and then trying to maintain peace, order and humanitarianism. Besides which, Canada and many of the other countries that have chosen not to be involved in the current situation don't have the military might to make much of a difference.

I can't speak for Tony Blair, but I think its safe to say that if the US allows any UN involvement in a post war Iraq, George W. Bush will be handing over the reigns of the presidency to a democrat next election. And you have to know that he's being advised of this by his political staff.

There seems to be a general feeling in this country that the UN, and in particular, France, Germany, Russia and to a lesser extent Canada, should not be allowed to profit from rebuilding Iraq. Personally I think its a good idea to keep them all out of a post war Iraq. There are plenty of companies in countries like Poland, the UK, Spain and the like that could profit from standing by with us.

 

[]ooooo(chained)]

You are now officially on the crowfest '03 guest list...

 

[patient1]

re. the 17 resolutions of the past ... I don't believe any of them said "we'll try and blow you out of the water, kill your leader and bomb the hell out of your country if you don't comply."
TK

Nah, but those sound like "serious consequences" to me.

Today the Pentagon said they'd succesfully destroyed all six Russian GPS jammers the Iraqiis have used so far, one of them with a GPS bomb. I guess that last doesn't speak yoo well of the effectiveness of the devices.