War in Iraq/Afghanistan

[jandros]

Insights on cost (just a few small examples):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010200370.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/13/wo...pagewanted=all
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/I...006(Final).pdf
Interesting...
http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=14941

[istanbulgal]

[quote=Koukla;414782]Yes, otherwise they might be called "ungrateful".QUOTE]

As you did not quote me fully, I don't know if you are referring to the Afghanistan or Iraqi war, what I said was:

"As Afghanistan is the primary front of the fight against Islamic extremism, as well as supportive and head-quarter for al-Qaeida training camps for terrorists, ending this war would be illogical & dangerous to the world, as such, it is a war that ought to be fought by ALL countries".

[istanbulgal]

Originally Posted by jandros

1. Obama: Here's the problem .... as a Senator, Obama does not really have a "record" for us to form opinions. He has not introduced or championed any major bills, initiatives, causes, in Congress. So a lot people don't really know what to think about him, because he has never put himself into a firm situation ... as far as I can see ... so that others can see what he really stands for.

2. Condoleeza Rice. I hoped she would run for the U.S. presidency. But of course she has a "ball and chain" association with a future ex-president, and she said very firmly that she doesn't want the job anyway. Most smart people don't want the job.

1. Agree, however, I rather take my chances on him than on McCain. In no way do I consider McCain qualified to lead America on the basis that he fought in a war or that he was a POW. Enough biography on this man already, more substance is needed.

2. I respectfully disagree. No argument she may be brilliant and indeed has impeccable academic credentials, but what has she really accomplished in her high profile role?. Again, too much biography, but little substance. IMHO, she has basically been a YES person for Bush.

[jandros]

Originally Posted by istanbulgal

1. Agree, however, I rather take my chances on him than on McCain. In no way do I consider McCain qualified to lead America on the basis that he fought in a war or that he was a POW.....

I agree with you completely about that, absolutely. And there was also another man who shared a POW camp with McCain, and for even longer than McCain ... 7 years I think? .... and he didn't care very much for McCain. He didn't trust him. That other POW's name is George "Bud" Day. He was both a Marine and an Air Force pilot, eventually a Colonel. There's an excellent book about Day, a biography titled "American Patriot", by Robert Coram. Excellent book.

Originally Posted by istanbulgal

2. I respectfully disagree (about Rice) ... IMHO, she has basically been a YES person for Bush.

I can certainly agree with that too. But I only mentioned her because I think she's one of the few truly intelligent people in government, who is capable of immediately sorting through a myriad of thoughts ... and implications, tangible and intangible ... and making the best decision or giving the best response to any given situation.

I also wish there were someone else that I could say that same thing about. But unfortunately I can't, not with any certainty.

But I do have this very strong impression: Obama is more of a thinking man, more of an intellectual than McCain could ever hope to be.

Istanbulgal, you live in Canada, but obviously you have more substantial knowledge about U.S. politics and government than most of my own countrymen. Good for you! but it's a sad statement about voters and taxpayers in the U.S.

[istanbulgal]

Originally Posted by jandros

1. But I do have this very strong impression: Obama is more of a thinking man, more of an intellectual than McCain could ever hope to be.

2. Istanbulgal, you live in Canada, but obviously you have more substantial knowledge about U.S. politics and government than most of my own countrymen. Good for you! but it's a sad statement about voters and taxpayers in the U.S.

1. My sentiments exactly, not only that, but I truly believe he speaks from the heart, reason for which he has inspired thousands of people...when some Americans criticized and even mocked him for having excellent oratory skills, a celebrity like status and for having had 250,000 people come out to listen to him in Germany, they did not understand that people are reacting to more than his words, more than his looks...there is something intangible about this man that you can feel, but not necessarily see, and with this he has been electrifying political enthusiasm globally.

2. Lol...actually I enjoy world politics more because ours is boring (sorry to say, but it is the truth!!). Anybody know about our own upcoming election?. Probably not, you see, not interesting enough!.

[jandros]

Originally Posted by istanbulgal

...2. Lol...actually I enjoy world politics more because ours is boring (sorry to say, but it is the truth!!).....

... But of course you also count boredom as a good thing, don't you?

I also enjoy world affairs more, but partly because it distracts me from the day-to-day idiocy that invades and saturates U.S. politics. Most of it is soooooo stupid, so shallow, there are so many "knee-jerk reactions" and so much childish bickering that it's unbelievable, it's disgusting, it's infuriating.

Tengri:

You wanted insights and discussion about U.S. politics? Do you have "too much information" now?

[PROPEL]

Originally Posted by istanbulgal

but I truly believe he speaks from the heart, reason for which he has inspired thousands of people...when some Americans criticized and even mocked him for having excellent oratory skills, a celebrity like status and for having had 250,000 people come out to listen to him in Germany, they did not understand that people are reacting to more than his words, more than his looks...there is something intangible about this man that you can feel, but not necessarily see, and with this he has been electrifying political enthusiasm globally.

i could not agree with you more.
i love obama so much. he truely is amazing.

[istanbulgal]

Originally Posted by jandros

... But of course you also count boredom as a good thing, don't you?

Yes and no. Politics does not always have to be complex, there has to be a level of enthusiasm and especially involvement in order to change things and in this country, as wonderful as it is, there is very little enthusiasm in the political arena. But having said that, there is no other place I rather live.

[tengrimountain]

Originally Posted by jandros

... But of course you also count boredom as a good thing, don't you?

I also enjoy world affairs more, but partly because it distracts me from the day-to-day idiocy that invades and saturates U.S. politics. Most of it is soooooo stupid, so shallow, there are so many "knee-jerk reactions" and so much childish bickering that it's unbelievable, it's disgusting, it's infuriating.

Tengri:

You wanted insights and discussion about U.S. politics? Do you have "too much information" now?

Hahha thanks to you jandros I'll participate ongoing discussion as soon as i'll finish another chapter in my thesis, i'm in panic now :=)

[jandros]

Originally Posted by tengrimountain

Hahha thanks to you jandros I'll participate ongoing discussion as soon as i'll finish another chapter in my thesis, i'm in panic now :=)

Your thesis!! We'll try to be very quiet and not disturb you too much!

@Istanbulgal: Yes, you said "level of enthusiasm" and involvement are necessary ... and I would say that apathy is worse than anything. If people don't care or have no interest, not even enough to try to learn about issues and people, then in my harshest of opinions, they deserve what they get.

[elraisa]

i just needed to move this thred forword...i can not find it easly when i need to read a part..
until i finish reading posts...thank u all 4 participating in this thread...

[jandros]

Elraisa, thanks for elevating this topic, so I didn't need to look so hard to find it ... and here's some more reading for you

Today I saw an interesting news article, and basically it's a statement from Iraqi government officials, about renewal of the existing agreement between the Iraqi and US governments. They've actually been negotiating the new agreement for the past few months. But of course the media have been reporting everything except the "boring details" like these ... please excuse my sarcasm ... so anyway, here is the news article:

Iraq Official Urges Approval of US Security Accord

The point (or the urgency) is that the current contract expires on 31 December. The leadership in Iraq wants a new agreement to be signed by 31 December. And of course it will also contain specifications about reduction and withdrawal. But there are still 2 or 3 issues to be worked out.

We can easily assume that President-Elect Obama is now involved in ongoing discussions about the new agreement, as part of the normal routine in the transfer of power. Or maybe he will become involved next week ... maybe on Monday, when he will attend the first daily intelligence briefings and other meetings with President Bush.

[MAHA]

hi guys
thanks for such since iam iragi thread the moment i saw the thread it attracted me but i couldnt reply unless i read all the posts
thanks

[jandros]

Hi Maha
It's late for me and I need to go to sleep now. See you later

[MAHA]

hhhhhhhhh the moment we get up u in america go to sleep
now iam about to eat lunch and u shloud wake up after an hour or tow
now itis 12,50 pm
good morning it sould be now 6,50
see u later

[jandros]

Maha my friend, I just want to say that you are Iraqi, so this is about your life. The rest of us only have "opinions", but this has even touched you and your family. Your feelings are a lot more important than anything else, no matter what anyone else says or thinks. Of course that's obvious, but I just thought I should say it.......

[MAHA]

actully dear i have many things to tell about but let me finish reading the post but i hope u will understand me that this war prevent me from my adorable natives

[elraisa]

Oh my god..this was exhausting…
My dear American friends…you know what you mean to me…you are my friends and you are still …but I can not fool you or fool myself about this..I am sorry…try to accept my words…I do not understand politics so mutch..so I am responding just with my feelings.

-by Jandros
(children come to men who carry big and powerful guns. The children are not afraid of them, and they want the gifts that the soldiers will have for them)

1- I will leave comment to Maha…
2- did you watch any images of (Abu Ghraib) prison?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghr...prisoner_abuse
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

-by Istanbulgal
(America's main source of oil comes from 1) Canada, 2) Mexico and 3) Nigeria, NOT the Middle East, so the notion that America kills for oil is simply ludicrous.)

I believe You need to control Oil that support others..(absolute power).

-by tengrimountain
You are great…thank you so mutch..

(Either slow or rapid pull out, there will be a big trouble for everyone)
(Democracy lovers says that worst democracy is better than the best dictatorship, but it is not true - Things in middle east is very different that an American or European can never understand)
I agree

-by Koukla
(USA is backing terrorism as much as those that have been listed)
(It's high time they got out of there. Enough blood)
I agree

-By propel
(America think that we have to go and fix everyone's problems)
I think you only move when it concerns your political interests …

-by Jandros
(Nobody wants to be accused of meddling or manipulation in the affairs of other countries, but if or when it happens, it's about balance of powers)
No comment

-by tengrimountain
(Just like 19th century Belgium, Afghanistan is created as a neutral buffer zone between Brits and Russian, and had to be untouchable. Soviets broke the gentleman's agreement, and US helped mujahideens to counter balance. Nothing unethical. Balance was established after withdrawal. And later balance was broken, this time thanks to US)
- Who built Ben laden now?

(Saddam could never be a Hitler. First of all, in his era no ethnical problems occured among people. My Turkman friends told that even in Kurdish rebellions, Turks, Kurds and Arabs in villages had no problems. So he didn't try to make a single scape goat to exterminate. He killed thousands of Turkman and Arabs too, not only Kurds. But massacres were directed against political figures, not people.)
- I realy need maha to comment ..


-By Jandros

(there is so much that should be known, I believe, but it can't be revealed publicly, for all kinds of different reasons. And it's often just a misguided few, on every side of the fence, who create bad situations or stir up bad feelings among people who could be and should be good friends and very mutually supportive friends)
- What ever, I hope Obama can build a new friendship .

-By Istanbulgal
(ending this war would be illogical & dangerous to the world, as such, it is a war that ought to be fought by ALL countries)

- Dear friend You have to accept that no one belongs to there except Iraqians , more countries involve …more mess..

@ Jandros
I did not read the article you mentioned but I will as soon as I loose this Headache I got from this thread..

Generally…
If any of you would like to see the other side of coin,..tray to read something for this writer..( Mohamed Hassanein Heikal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Hassanein_Heikal
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op65.htm
Mustafa El-Feki
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/830/op2.htm

[istanbulgal]

Originally Posted by elraisa

1. Oh my god..this was exhausting…
My dear American friends…you know what you mean to me…you are my friends and you are still

2. By Istanbulgal
(ending this war would be illogical & dangerous to the world, as such, it is a war that ought to be fought by ALL countries)

- Dear friend You have to accept that no one belongs to there except Iraqians , more countries involve …more mess..

1. Nice Elraisa that you took the time to read our old posts and now offering your comments, thank you for that!

2. Note that in this thread we were discussing 2 wars, if you read my initial post again, you will see that the quote above was referring to the war in Afghanistan, NOT the Iraqi war, which i happen to agree that it's about time it comes to an end, it should have ended shortly after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, but for reasons I also explained in my post, it has not been possible.

My FULL quote was:

"As Afghanistan is the primary front of the fight against Islamic extremism, as well as supportive and head-quarter for al-Qaeida training camps for terrorists, ending this war would be illogical & dangerous to the world.."

The last point i would like to make is that withdrawing the troops is not as easy as you might think, there are many issues, most importantly internal as well as external security issues, which affect not only the troops, but very much the Iraqis as well.

[jandros]

Elraisa my dear friend, of course you don't need to worry about expressing your feelings. And most important, I believe everybody wants it to end. It's not even a question. I think the only question is why it began, and then what is the real situation, after everything that we read or hear or see?

This will be my last post about this, and only to explain a few thoughts in more detail:

First, maybe all of us are just "victims" in some way? ... bad information, bad decisions, no decisions, misunderstandings, too much action by some, too little action by others ... and I mean all others ... whoever among the Arab nations might be able to bring stronger and stronger unity within the Arab nations ... so we can all feel more warm and secure? ... hope you don't mind me saying that ... but there is a lot of power among the Arab nations, and the power can be good or bad for the world. It's important, very very important.

For me personally: Because of the job that I had in the 1980's-90's, I had personal questions about everything that happened around me ... just natural questions, normal thoughts ... and even before 2003, even before 1990, I absorbed a lot of information, because it might have involved me, personally. But even more: In 1991, people were sent to determine if Saddam had nuclear weapons. That was from intelligence information from the UK, Jordan, Egypt, and other countries that don't want to be named. And outside of that concern, as early as the mid-1980's we suspected that Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa had nuclear weapons. And of course that was part of a bigger concern ... not only for the US or any other western country, but most certainly for the world at large. If Saddam possessed or was developing nuclear weapons, it magnified the problem, the "risk", throughout the world.

That is just to say that I've always tried very very hard to understand everything myself, but as a bigger picture. So I have watched hours and hours, literally, even days and weeks of news and videos ... US news, Canada, BBC, French APF, even al Jazeera sometimes, and now CNBC has a "world news" segment that includes reports from France, Turkey, Russia, China, on and on. I just want to try to understand everything that I hear and read.

Another aspect: The UN sanctions from sometime in the 1990's until 2003 ... because Saddam was being a bad boy, in every mentionable way ... whatever judgments there might be about that ... but the economic sanctions were already hurting the Iraqi people ... not Saddam, because he controlled everything ... that's how I understood it. And how long would that continue?

But you asked about Abu Ghraib: But first, of course I'm sorry if this upsets anyone, and there is at least one person here who has had a personal tragedy, and of course I am so sorry about that! Of course I can feel it, and I can't even say how close it is to me...

Yes, I've read and heard many reports. But I have also watched hours and hours of interviews with Iraqis who were tortured by Saddam or his sons, his 100 closest "friends", and his 75,000 Republican Guard members ... just for example, a wife and daughter who were brutalized in front of a husband ... and hundreds, thousands of bodies that were dug up from mass graves, and Iraqis helped to find the graves, because their relatives had disappeared and they wanted to find them ... hundreds or thousands of stories (videos) that are more terrible than anyone wants to hear.

So the stories come from both sides (or many sides) of the situation. But what should we believe? Again, maybe we are all victims of too much political "discussion" and not enough real information.

And of course, again, why did it happen?? Why did anything happen?? But the "answers" come from 2 or 3 different sides, a dozen different views, many views of what actually happened, and why, and what is happening now, and why? Who do we believe? What motives do we believe, any of us? Those are all of the questions together.

Oil ... until very recently, we got 20% of our oil from Venezuela. Venezuela is a lot closer. But the violence is not about oil. Mexico and Canada and the US (all of the Americas) can be entirely self-sufficient about oil, if we really want to do it. And actually, I think we'll do it in the next 20 years, while we continue developing alternative fuels. We've been talking about it for 20 years, and we've even been doing a little bit.

About demanding an end: On one hand it's difficult, as Istanbulgal says. On the other hand, the UN Security Council could have ended it in 2006. Any 1 of the 5 permanent members, including China, France and Russia, just 1 of those countries could veto Resolution 1723. If France would not veto, say "no", to the US or UK, Russia or China would do it. But even Russia has only suggested a timetable, after rebuilding and security and stability are accomplished:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/22/mideast/iraq.php

But more than anything, Iraq itself can end it at any time, even now, because that is a specific formal condition of the resolution.

Just to say again, of course I understand that Iraq and its neighbors don't want anyone else deciding things for them. Please don't misunderstand me about that, it's all important to me. It's not me, I'm just explaining how it is seen.

But to continue: UN Resolution 1723 stresses "rapid implementation" of a "plan". The document includes Prime Minister al-Maliki's 3 main goals ... but is al-Maliki just a "puppet" of the US and/or UK? ... of course that opinion exists. But this is from the formal resolution, his goals:

1. Recruit, train, equip, and arm Iraqi Security Forces.
2. Assume command and control of Iraqi Security Forces in each of the 18 Provinces.
3. Formally transfer complete control to the government of Iraq.
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement (pdf document, "original", signed by al-Maliki)
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8879.doc.htm (US copy)

Since the summer, a total of 15 provinces have been controlled by the Iraqi Security Forces. It was 12 provinces, and now it's 15 (or more?), and soon it will be 18. Then Iraq will define future conditions of security, if any. But of course we all hope that everything will end completely.

Other conferences, meetings, discussions, just a couple of examples that I've heard about in the past few years:

Sharm el-Sheikh (spelling?)
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/718/op1.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...anovosti04.htm
http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/EgyptOnline...0000003148.htm
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/cou...5.07_9103.html
This is the Chinese version (a directly opposing view, and again China has veto power of the UN resolution):
http://www.china.org.cn/english/inte...nal/112774.htm

"Conference of Iraq's neighbors"
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/cou....08_11187.html

I wrote too much again ... I hope you won't have another headache now ... but now that's all that I'll say. Even if someone asks more questions, I'm really going to try to shut up now. Peace and many blessings