How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 global-free-fire-zone GRRRRRR   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

global-free-fire-zone GRRRRRR

  Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


0 posted 01-17-2005 10:32 AM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

Next stop: Iran

Yank commandos already in place, mag says

BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - U.S. commandos are hunting for secret nuclear and chemical weapons sites and other targets in Iran, and have a plan to turn the hard-line Islamic country into the next front in the war on terrorism.

"It's not if we're going to do anything against Iran. They're doing it," an ex-intelligence official tells this week's issue of The New Yorker.

Since at least last summer, the U.S. teams have penetrated eastern Iran, reportedly with Pakistan's help, the magazine said.

"Iraq is just one campaign," the official told investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. "The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign."

The aim is to rid America and its allies of a major state sponsor of terrorism, Hersh writes.

"We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy," the official tells Hersh. "This is the last hurrah - we've got four years and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whom President Bush has asked to stay on in his second term, has been jockeying for more power to conduct covert ops without nagging congressional oversight.

"It's a global free-fire zone," said one Pentagon adviser.
****
Deju vu....
Why even bother giving anyone an explanation or 'excuse' for what this government does? The black knight rides unrestrained. So, which five countries on planet Earth will NOT be 'visited' by the mighty USA?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


1 posted 01-17-2005 08:10 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

“U.S. commandos are hunting for secret nuclear and chemical weapons sites and other targets.”

Should this have been done in Iraq rather than relying on satellite and foreign
intelligence sources, on CIA analysis from a distance?

I also wonder about the characterization.  I can’t imagine a squad of “commandos”
however camouflaged going unnoticed.   What if these are Iranian nationals
acting as agents.  Does the United States have an interest in knowing, with more
certainty than it had before, as to what is going on and where in a country that is
“a major state sponsor of terrorism”?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


2 posted 01-17-2005 08:38 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

The truth is that we won't know what that bridge looks like until we cross it.  Some conspiracy theorists could move along these thoughts:  democracy in Afghanistan, on the east side of Iran, then democracy in Iraq, on the west side of Iran.  Close the pincers and put the squeeze on, either for internal revolt, or assisted revolution.  Either that, or a two front assault moving towards the center.

Irregardless, it's all speculation for now.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


3 posted 01-17-2005 11:28 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
Does the United States have an interest in knowing, with more
certainty than it had before, as to what is going on and where in a country that is
“a major state sponsor of terrorism”?


Agreed. So um, when are they going to start looking at Saudi Arabia?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


4 posted 01-18-2005 12:07 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


Aenimal

What makes you think they aren’t?


jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


5 posted 01-18-2005 08:25 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

What makes you think we shouldn't?
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


6 posted 01-18-2005 12:50 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Huan Yi,

You mean aside from the obvious? Ok. I'll keep the Bush/Saudi so victims or supporters of the demagogue, breathe easy.

First. Even approach Mecca and this war will never end.

Second. Despite the fact that Saudi Arabia is rife with Al-Quaeda, despite the fact that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and despite the fact their human rights violations are on par with Saddam(I mean that's why Iraq was attacked, to free them from tyranny right?), Saudi Arabia doesn't even make the 'Axis Of Evil' list.

In terms of economy and oil, until the other 'evil' nations are 'freed' and some semblance of control of the area is achieved, Saudi Arabia will never be a target.
James_A_Fraser
Senior Member
since 09-03-2003
Posts 981
Out Making Anticlines


7 posted 01-18-2005 06:06 PM       View Profile for James_A_Fraser   Email James_A_Fraser   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for James_A_Fraser

The answer is, any five countries that aren't a direct threat to the existence of our culture. We have a right to live in the way we choose, and a right to defend ourselves against those who have the stated intention of ending our way of life -- and us with it if necessary. We're not attacking here, we're defending....WE are the offended party, WE are the victim of unprovoked attacks, and we have not just the right to defend ourselves, we have a duty to do it....to ourselves, and to the many-more-than-five countries who hide behind us for protection.

As to entering other countries -- we have the same rights now that we had when we wiped out the Barbary Pirates, and a whole lot better justification. Where they go, we can and should go, and as long as they are a threat to us, we can and should wipe them out -- anywhere in the world -- with no quarter, no mercy, and no rules of engagement.



~~J

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


8 posted 01-18-2005 07:43 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


Today the BBC reported that the Iranian government
discounted the report which they described as “psychological warfare.”
I hadn’t considered the possibility that the story was a deliberate
ploy in which the reporter was an unsuspecting tool.  If so, good show.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


9 posted 01-18-2005 09:28 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
as long as they are a threat to us, we can and should wipe them out -- anywhere in the world -- with no quarter, no mercy, and no rules of engagement


wonderful attitude, feed the cycle. and create more enemies in the process. as for no mercy and no rules of engagement, the numerous geneva convention rules being tossed at the window show you may get your wish afterall
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


10 posted 01-18-2005 09:32 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Geneva Convention rules do not, nor ever have, applied to non-uniformed enemy combatants.  Granted, it would be nice if all the terrorists and insurgents wore distinctive uniforms with identifiable insignias, but they don't.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


11 posted 01-18-2005 09:49 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

so the lack of clear insignia and uniform, justifies the undermining of the geneva convention or more importantly, human decency?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


12 posted 01-18-2005 09:54 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

It's not undermining the Geneva Convention.  It states in the Geneva Convention that those on the battlefield who are not in recognizable uniforms with recognizable insignias are not covered by the Geneva Accords.  That's the point I was trying to make.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


13 posted 01-18-2005 10:07 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Aenimal,


“so the lack of clear insignia and uniform, justifies the undermining of the geneva convention or more importantly, human decency?”

Don’t forget in the context of this discussion that you are talking about
people making efforts and using every means, including the deliberate
lack of clear insignia and uniform, to kill.   That they would be treated
harshly is not new because of the present war.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


14 posted 01-18-2005 10:10 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Ali wasn't attacking just wanted to understand your position.


Huan don't forget, their country was attacked, and i wonder if the US was attacked in a similar way whether you'd all wear uniforms to stand and fight?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


15 posted 01-18-2005 10:20 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

I know, Aenimal, and no hard feelings.

Geneva Convention

Article 4 is the one I was thinking about.

Those who were caught in 'civilian' attire quickly tried to claim Geneva Convention protection, even though Iraq never signed.  Never mind it would have just been ink and paper to Saddam.  And if America was attacked and civilians took up arms, they would not be protected by the Geneva Convention either.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


16 posted 01-18-2005 10:33 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

If we have a moral right to enter any country at any time, and inflict any and all damage we deem suitable in whatever way we deem suitable . . . then so do they. Essentially, such logic (sic) justifies 9/11 and characterizes it as a moral act.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


17 posted 01-18-2005 10:57 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
. . then so do they. Essentially, such logic (sic) justifies 9/11 and characterizes it as a moral act


which is what disappoints me.. i'd hoped the west, who claim a higher standard of morality and respect of civil rights, would practice what we preach.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


18 posted 01-19-2005 12:41 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Aenimal,

I think these “insurgents” could care less about “their country”;
they are not patriots.  They resent the loss of power over
a people they brutalized over thirty years for the sake
of their own pleasure and profit.  They want that
same power back, otherwise they would let the process
proceed knowing we would leave, (and we would,
there’s no doubt in my mind, or I suspect theirs,
on that point).  If such insurgents were in control of my
country I would welcome any help to topple them,
(someone once said that such regimes, that are willing
and able to kill entire families, are rarely toppled from within),
and I would expect those insurgents to resort to any measure
to retain or regain the power that is and was the source
of their satisfaction.  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


19 posted 01-19-2005 12:53 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I continue to find some comments here absolutely incredible...
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


20 posted 01-19-2005 01:01 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

so all insurgents are concerned with is restoring an oppressive dicatorship over iraq for their pleasure and profit?

c'mon

and the question i posed to you was not whether you would fight against your definition of insurgents.

the question was, if attacked by a foreign nation would you stand and fight on the streets of your cities? I think the answer is yes, and the point was, in such an attack you wouldn't have the time to enlist or worry about wearing uniforms. still i suspect you would hope that geneva convention rules was observed.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


21 posted 01-19-2005 01:03 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

as do i deer
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


22 posted 01-19-2005 01:17 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Aenimal,

“the question was, if attacked by a foreign nation would you stand and fight on the streets of your cities? I think the answer is yes,”

You are wrong.  In such circumstances as existed in Iraq, I would do everything
I could to assist that foreign nation to the purpose of liberating not only my country,
(which should be more than mere land), but my people.  I would do so knowing that as a single man with no living relatives I am freer to do so than a husband or a father whose inactivity I would understand and respect as being for the sake of their loved ones.  I would further fight in the streets to defeat those who were in power before who attempted to bring their tyranny back.


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


23 posted 01-19-2005 12:05 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Huan, you keep twisting the question to suit your vision of what's happening in Iraq. The majority of Iraqis don't, and will never, see this as a freedom mission but an occupation. That's their perception whether you agree with it or not.

Since you won't answer the first question, let me offer you another hypothetical(i hate these) question. Without using Iraq as a template.

If the USSR had, or if China did, attack the United States in an attempt to free you from what 'they' deem an oppressive capitalist system. Would you assist them, or would you fight to retain your version of freedom and society? Would you do anything to fight their occupation.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


24 posted 01-19-2005 07:11 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

the question was, if attacked by a foreign nation would you stand and fight on the streets of your cities? I think the answer is yes, and the point was, in such an attack you wouldn't have the time to enlist or worry about wearing uniforms. still i suspect you would hope that geneva convention rules was observed.

I have no idea in the world how you can compare life in the United States with life in Iraq, the government of the US with Saddam Hussein. You make it sound like the Iraqui's freedom and liberties were attacked by an evil government aimed at taking them away and then ask how we would feel if that happened to us. It couldn't be farther from the truth....neither can the comparison you are trying to portray. ..and do you really think the insurgents give a damn about the Geneva convention?


If the USSR had, or if China did, attack the United States in an attempt to free you from what 'they' deem an oppressive capitalist system. Would you assist them, or would you fight to retain your version of freedom and society? Would you do anything to fight their occupation.


Again, you make it sound like the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein with the mass murders, the well-documented terrorist regime of he and his sons was only evil because the US "deemed" it so. Do you feel that the average Iraqui citizen even had a version of freedom and society? Of course they didn't and I'm sure you know that.

Setting up these types of comparisons makes no logical sense at all unless you are trying to say life in the US and life in Iraq were basically the same, the governments were the same, and the freedoms of the people were the same. Certainly you can';t say that so how can you ask questions based on these comparisons?

The majority of Iraqis don't, and will never, see this as a freedom mission but an occupation. That's their perception whether you agree with it or not.

I would like to know how you can speak for the majority of Iraqis or where you got the information to make such a statement. On the contrary, every study indicates just the opposite. On 60 Minutes, for example, they were interviewing a large group of Iraqis who had suffered sice the US invasion, either themselves or by having lost friends in the subsequent fighting. They spoke of how they wanted the fighting to end in the country. When asked by Mike Wallace if they wished that the US have never come and ousted Hussein from power, to a man they all screamed out NO. They want peace but they have no regrets about the US taking Hussein out. They may indeed be concerned about continued occupation and they want it to be over and the Allies to go home but they all support what has happened. Your comment, stated as absolute fact, is in error.
 
  Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> global-free-fire-zone GRRRRRR   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors