Razboiul din Iraq

[bogdan george]

Originally Posted by jet li

Nu e nici un santaj. Cum te poate cineva santaja cu ce nu detii si nu ai nici un drept asupra lui ? Daca nu te-ai gandit sa iti asiguri energia din alte surse si te-ai bazat ca o sa cumperi petrol la infinit din Rusia, asta meriti sa se inchida robinetul.

Cum sa nu fie santaj? //offtopic// Unu la mana, fostele state comuniste/sovietice n-au avut (si inca n-au) de ales. Toate conductele de petrol de la rasarit vin, ca asa a vrut Big Brother. //offtopic// Doi la mana, sa zicem ca eu sunt un fotograf (nu zic paparazzo ca ma zgarie la urechi) si iti fac tie poze cand esti la mare si te distrezi cu o bunaciune. Cand te intorci acasa la nevasta, trec pe la tine si iti fac o oferta atractiva: 1000 de euro/poza. Altfel, ma duc la consoarta. Pozele sunt facute legal in spatii publice, tranzactia in sine e legala. E santaj sau nu? Cata vreme esti prins la inghesuiala si trebuie sa prestezi sau sa suferi consecintele, este.

[EMI]

Originally Posted by valh

Americanii nu au invadat Irakul pentru ca era dictatura acolo ci pentru ca era o plaga acolo ,o plaga care avea consecinte internationale. Saddam avea ambitii marete ,sa fie centrul mondial al terorismului. Baietii de acolo si din tot Orientul Mijlociu atacau lumea occidentala.

Valh, acum între noi, sper ca dai copy/paste din discursuri din 2003, maxim 2004, nu ? Ca baiet destept pari sa fii, informat - la fel. Lasa povestile cu centrul mondial al terorismului lui Jet Li, se pricepe mult mai bine ca tine la povesti din astea si pare si mai credibil (culmea).

[jet li]

EMI care povesti ? Eu nu cred ca am spus nimic fara un link la o stire dintr-un ziar sau ceva.
bogdan george ce spui tu e santaj, dar nu vad cum faptul ca cineva nu vrea sa iti vanda proprietatea lui e santaj, cu petrolul nu e nici o problema in genul celei descrise de tine. Nu Big Brother - nu stiu ce intelegi prin el a vrut ca toate conductele sa vina de la rasarit , dar acolo e petrol. Cum ai fi vrut sa vina conductele de la vest la est ? Nu e petrol in vest, in Marea Nordului se produce si se consuma tot in tarile producatoare care inca mai trebuie sa importe si in plus
Nu poti produce petrol oriunde cum produci coca cola.

[bogdan george]

1) Big Brother = URSS.
2) Conductele puteau veni si din Africa de Nord sau Orientul Mijlociu (asa e frumos si sanatos, sa-ti diversifici sursele).
3) Daca anumite state pur si simplu n-ar vinde petrol, n-ar fi santaj. Ele insa spun "nu-ti vindem petrol decat daca...".
4) Petrolul nu se produce, se extrage.

[ixtl]

Da, bine. Si? Tot santaj e.

3) Daca anumite state pur si simplu n-ar vinde petrol, n-ar fi santaj. Ele insa spun "nu-ti vindem petrol decat daca...".

Asa se fac afacerile la nivelul asta. Punct.
Babeste, cand X are nevoie de produsul lui Y, si nu are de unde sa-l ia din alta parte, decat poate la un pret mult mai mare, X joaca cum ii canta Y. Mai ales daca legaturile de afaceri ale Y cu X nu ii sunt vitale primului.
Realpolitik, baby.

Americanii nu au invadat Irakul pentru ca era dictatura acolo ci pentru ca era o plaga acolo ,o plaga care avea consecinte internationale. Saddam avea ambitii marete ,sa fie centrul mondial al terorismului.[...]

valh, cre'ca glumesti

[Zarzavat]

pe mine ma sperie disperarea americanilor din orientul mijlociu. sa fie petrolul pe terminate? daca ataca si iranul, nu e de bine... si scutul antiracheta din cehia. parca se pregatesc de ceva ce urmeaza sa se intample in curand.

[bogdan george]

Originally Posted by ixtl

Asa se fac afacerile la nivelul asta. Punct.
Babeste, cand X are nevoie de produsul lui Y, si nu are de unde sa-l ia din alta parte, decat poate la un pret mult mai mare, X joaca cum ii canta Y. Mai ales daca legaturile de afaceri ale Y cu X nu ii sunt vitale primului.
Realpolitik, baby.

Da, bine. Si? Tot santaj e.

[valh]

Originally Posted by EMI

Valh, acum între noi, sper ca dai copy/paste din discursuri din 2003, maxim 2004, nu ? Ca baiet destept pari sa fii, informat - la fel. Lasa povestile cu centrul mondial al terorismului lui Jet Li, se pricepe mult mai bine ca tine la povesti din astea si pare si mai credibil (culmea).

Ce sa mai zic eu ,pari sa fi singura inteligenta existenta pe pamant,acunzand pe altii de copy/paste. Nu nene,asta e ce cred eu ,daca ai un alt punct de vedere ,expune-l inteligibil.

In fata ta sunt sigur ca este mai credibil Jet Li al XVII-lea.(nu e culmea).Cum se gasesc unii sa faca pe analistii posturilor.

Originally Posted by ixrl

valh, cre'ca glumesti

Au ,ia zi ,de ce as glumi? Sau o simpla remarca e suficienta ?

[ixtl]

Originally Posted by valh

Au ,ia zi ,de ce as glumi? Sau o simpla remarca e suficienta ?

Americanii nu au invadat Irakul pentru ca era dictatura acolo ci pentru ca era o plaga acolo ,o plaga care avea consecinte internationale. Saddam avea ambitii marete ,sa fie centrul mondial al terorismului.[...]

Pe ce informatii te bazezi cand faci afirmatia asta?
Doar dupa discursuri de-ale lui Dubyasau declaratii de presa ale DOS sau DOD?
Saddam era un individ suficient de inteligent incat sa-si dea seama ca acceptand tabere ale teroristilor (de orice culoare ar fi fost ei) pe propriul teritoriu si-ar aprinde paie in cap si i-ar fi aproape imposibil sa mai scape de ei. Cum a patit Gadaffi.
Ca suporta (fatis sau nu) miscarile anti-Israel, ca dealtfel toate tarile din zona Golfului, mai mult sau mai putin transparent, e ceva inevitabil. I-ar sari vecinii in cap daca nu ar face-o.
In ideea asta, de ce nu au invadat SUA Palestina, Libanul sau Libia, tari in care se stie foarte bine ca exista tabere ale teroristilor?
Si cat de legitima (sau nu) este antrenarea unor teroristi in propria tara, in situatia in care SUA a antrenat si finantat miscarea paramilitara anti-Castrista la inceputul anilor '60, si care s-a terminat cu marele fas numit Golful Porcilor? Asta fiind doar cazul cel mai cunoscut...

[valh]

Originally Posted by ixtl

Pe ce informatii te bazezi cand faci afirmatia asta?
Doar dupa discursuri de-ale lui Dubyasau declaratii de presa ale DOS sau DOD?...

E,parca ne mai venim de acasa ,trebuia de la inceput sa ma intrebi pe ce ma bazez,nu cu ironii care nu te onoreaza.

Originally Posted by ixtl

Saddam era un individ suficient de inteligent incat sa-si dea seama ca acceptand tabere ale teroristilor (de orice culoare ar fi fost ei) pe propriul teritoriu si-ar aprinde paie in cap si i-ar fi aproape imposibil sa mai scape de ei. Cum a patit Gadaffi.
...

Bun, incepem cu inceputul.Saddam Husein a ajuns la putere printr-o lovitura de stat. El a instaurat primul guvern laic din regiune ,lucru care i-a adus o serie de probleme. Una din probleme fiind Iranul revolutionar si islamist.O serie de grupari teroriste de sorginte iraniana au incercat sa destabilizeze situatia din Irak .La randul sau Saddam a reactionat prompt ,anihiland sangeros orice incercare de rasturnare a sa.A aparut de atunci ,in zona ,o mare rivalitate intre doua state mari ,unul laic si unul islamist. Irakul si Iranul .

Iranul cu Ruhollah Khomeini sef al statului ,a reorganizat gruparile sale care l-au dus la putere si a creat noi factiuni paramilitare pe care le-a pus in slujba statelor care erau animate(si ajutate) de dorinta de a devenii dictaturi religioase.Libanul spre exemplu.Ruhollah Khomeini era un lider ingust ,cu vederi extremist-religioase ,era impotriva oricarei manifestari a libertatilor. Spre deosebire ,Saddam ,pe atunci,era un lider care promitea in directia relaxarii tabuurilor din zona. Lucru care i-a facut pe americani sa il sprijine cata de cat. Rivalitatea intre cele doua state s-a accentuat. Saddam dorea cu disperare ca Irakul sa devina liderul lumii din Orientul Mijlociu ,avand si avantul ca era tara preponderent araba ,spre deosebire de Iran. Iranul dorea la la fel,dominatia.
In acest spirit , Saddam a condus opozitia araba fata de acordurile din Camp David în 1979 (între Egipt si Israel).Cam din aceea perioada a aparut si noul razboi dus de arabi impotriva Israelului,razboiul nevazut ,terorismul.
Dorind cu disperare recunosterea ca lider zonal,Irakul incepe sa puna la cale atentate si sa sustina terorismul international, chiar daca actiunile Irakului sunt indreptate mai ales impotriva opozantilor (anti-regim), simbol al infrangerilor irakiene din trecut sau organizatii care reprezinta sau aplica sanctiunile internationale aplicate Irakului. In octombrie 1998, agenti irakieni au planuit, sa atace un post de radio cu sediul in Praga.Irakul a organizat un complot, care a dat gres, in scopul asasinarii fostului presedinte Bush in timpul vizitei sale din Kuweit, din aprilie 1993. Irakul, care in mod traditional a avut legaturi cu Yasser Arafat, a sprijinit grupari palestiniene ce se opun pacii in regiune si a gazduit Organizatia Abu Nidal, Frontul Eliberarii Palestinei al lui Abu Abbas si alte grupari minore. Pastrând aceleasi relatii cu Iranul, Irakul continua sa gazduiasca si sa ofere arme organizatiei Armata de Eliberare Nationala, care isi avea bazele langa granita cu Iran.
Sunt socat si acum de cruzimea dementilor din zona ,care ,in timpul razboiului Irakiano-iranian deminau sectoarele minate dintre cele doua armate in special de catre iranieni adunand sute de copii carora li se citea Coranul, apoi li se infasura pe cap o legatura de carpa scrisa cu versete din Coran si erau manati in campurile minate sarind in aer si facand astfel carare pentru tancurile si soldatii iranieni.
Dorinta de dominatie a lui Saddam a culminat cu invazia Kwaitului ,care ii submina eforturile de a isi plati datoriile de 70 de milioane de dolari accumulate in timpul razboiului din 80-88.
Implicarea Irakului in gazduirea si finantarea celulelor teroriste apare de asemenea si in raportul Patterns 2000.
Aceasta rivalitate continua cu Iranul l-a facut sa isi doreasca o dominatie totala ,sa fie el liderul lumii arabe ,lume araba ce trebuia sa declanseze lupta impotriva Israelului si al aliatului sau SUA.Prin orice mijloace. Ma rog ,poate gresesc ,poate ca am analizat eu gresit situatia.

[ixtl]

Ceea ce descrii mai sus (pana in anumite limite) poate fi descrierea unor actiuni (cu schimbarea unor nume de tari, personaje politice si a unor ani) - si consecintelor acestora pe plan local - initiate si coordonate de URSS, SUA si altii, din diferite perioade de timp si spatiu geografic, pentru protejarea propriilor interese si/sau ale aliatilor.

Americanii nu au invadat Irakul pentru ca era dictatura acolo ci pentru ca era o plaga acolo ,o plaga care avea consecinte internationale. Saddam avea ambitii marete ,sa fie centrul mondial al terorismului.[...]

In mod ciudat, Senatul SUA, o institutie care se respecta si cel putin vrea sa dea impresia ca ii respecta pe cetatenii pe care ii reprezinta, spunea in 2006 cam asa ceva:

The "Postwar Findings" report had the following conclusions about Saddam's alleged links to al-Qaeda:

Conclusion 1: The CIA's assessment that Iraq and al-Qaeda were "two independent actors trying to exploit each other" was accurate only about al-Qaeda. "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."
Conclusion 2: Postwar findings have indicated that there was only one meeting between representatives of Saddam Hussein and representatives of al-Qaeda. These findings also identified two occasions "not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qa'ida and Iraq."
Conclusion 3: "Prewar Intelligence Community assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa'ida. Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provided two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000.... No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war."
Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."
Conclusion 5: Postwar findings support the assessment that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and associates were present in Baghdad from May-November 2002. "Prewar assessments expressed uncertainty about Iraq's complicity in their presence, but overestimated the Iraqi regime's capabilities to locate them. Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."
Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them. "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group."
Conclusion 7: "Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike..... Postwar findings support CIA's January 2003 assessment, which judged that 'the most reliable reporting casts doubt' on one of the leads, an alleged meeting between Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, and confirm that no such meeting occurred. Prewar intelligence reporting cast doubt on the other lead as well."
Conclusion 8: "No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Conclusion 9: "additional reviews of documents recovered in Iraq are unlikely to provide information that would contradict the Committee's findings or conclusions. The Committee believes that the results of detainee debriefs largely comport with documentary evidence, but the Committee cannot definitively judge the accuracy of statements made by individuals in custody and cannot, in every case, confirm that the detainee statements are truthful and accurate."

Textul de mai sus e un mic rezumat al raportului de aici, in situatia in care Wikipedia nu te multumeste.

Afirmatia ta de mai sus nu prea se pupa cu concluziile Comitetului de Informatii ale Senatului SUA.
Acum, eu pe cine sa cred?

[valh]

Inseamna ca cei din U.S Departament of State,au batut campii cand au redactat Patterns of Global Terrorism si Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism ,unde apare Irak. Ma rog,asta este.

Originally Posted by ixtl

Pe ce informatii te bazezi cand faci afirmatia asta?
Doar dupa discursuri de-ale lui Dubyasau declaratii de presa ale DOS sau DOD?
Saddam era un individ suficient de inteligent incat sa-si dea seama ca acceptand tabere ale teroristilor (de orice culoare ar fi fost ei) pe propriul teritoriu si-ar aprinde paie in cap si i-ar fi aproape imposibil sa mai scape de ei. Cum a patit Gadaffi.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2441.htm

[ixtl]

Originally Posted by valh

Inseamna ca cei din U.S Departament of State,au batut campii cand au redactat Patterns of Global Terrorism si Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism ,unde apare Irak. Ma rog,asta este.

Mda.
Surprize, surprize.
Welcome to Washington, D.C.

[jet li]

De anul trecut CIA nu il mai cauta pe Bin Laden :

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/wa...zIot1180g+io/Q

Nici o problema ? Ei lupta cu teroristii ? Cu fiecare terorist ucis, mai multi vor apare. Fiecare irakian ucis face ca prietenii si rudele lui sa fie foarte suparate pe US - posibil sa se apuce sa lupte contra lor, si asa la nesfarsit razboiul asta nu poate fi castigat. Sunt mai multe atacuri teroriste si teroristi azi decat in 2001. Bin Laden nici nu mai conteaza, a fost doar o sperietoare care i-a ajutat sa porneasca "razboiul antiterorist"

[PigBrother]

Irakienii aia ar trebui sa fie suparati pe conationalii care le omoara rudele. Americanii nu prea fac asa ceva.

[jet li]

Un soldat si experienta lui in Irak :

http://www.fourwinds10.com/NewsServe...rticleID=13937

Joshua Key, 28, was a poor, uneducated Oklahoma country boy who saw the U.S. army and its promised benefits -- from free health care to career training -- as the ticket to a better life. In 2002, not yet 24 but already married and the father of two , Key enlisted. He says his recruiting officer promised he'd never be deployed abroad, but a year later he was in Iraq. Only 24 hours after arriving, as Key recounts in The Deserter's Tale (Anansi), he experienced his first doubts about what he and his fellow soldiers were doing there:

I was awakened at 3 a.m. that first night and told to get my ass up quickly because in one hour we were going to raid a house full of terrorists. Capt. Conde and some sergeants showed me and my squad mates a satellite photo of a house and a drawing of the layout of the inside. Our assignment was to blow off the door, burst into the house, raid it fast and raid it good -- looking for contraband, caches of weapons, signs of terrorists or terrorist activity, then rounding up the men and getting out damn fast. The longer we stayed in any one location, the longer somebody would have to put us in the sights of a rocket-propelled grenade or lob mortars at us

I hadn't been in Iraq more than 24 hours and already I was having strange feelings. First, I was vulnerable, and I didn't like it. Even with all these soldiers and all this equipment, I knew that anywhere, at any time, any Iraqi with a gun, a wall to hide behind, and one decent eye could pick me off faster than a hawk nabs a mouse. Second, with hardly one foot into the war, I was also uneasy about what we were doing there. Something was amiss. We hadn't found anything in this girl's house, but we had busted it up pretty well in 30 minutes and had taken away her brothers. Inside, another squad was still ransacking the house. I didn't enjoy being stuck guarding this girl under the carport, in the cool April air before dawn in Ramadi. Her questions haunted me, and I didn't like not being able to answer them -- even to myself.

Busting into and ransacking homes remained one of my most common duties in Iraq. Before my time was up, I took part in about 200 raids. We never found weapons or indications of terrorism. I never found a thing that seemed to justify the terror we inflicted every time we blasted through the door of a civilian home, broke everything in sight, punched and zipcuffed the men, and sent them away. One raid was far worse.

Then something happened that haunts my dreams to this day. All the women were led back inside the house and our entire platoon was ordered to stand guard outside it. Four U.S. military men entered the house with the women. They closed the doors. We couldn't see anything through the windows. I don't know who the military men were, or what unit they were from, but I can only conclude that they outranked us and were at least at the level of first lieutenant or above. That's because our own second lieutenant Joyce was there, and his presence did not deter them.

It struck me then that we, the American soldiers, were the terrorists. We were terrorizing Iraqis. Intimidating them. Beating them. Destroying their homes. Probably raping them. The ones we didn't kill had all the reasons in the world to become terrorists themselves. Given what we were doing to them, who could blame them for wanting to kill us, and all Americans? A sick realization lodged like a cancer in my gut. It grew and festered, and troubled me more with every passing day. We, the Americans, had become the terrorists in Iraq.

Joshua Key a dezertat din US Army in 2003 :
http://www.cbcunlocked.com/artman/pu...icle_243.shtml

[Strangelove]

pare dubios articolul.
a poor, uneducated Oklahoma country boy n-ar scrie atat de elaborat si clisheistic:

In English, she asked me, "Where are you taking my brothers?"
"I don't know, Miss," I said.
"Why are you taking them away?"
"I'm afraid I can't say."
"When are you bringing them back?"
"Couldn't tell you that either."
"Why are you doing this to us?"
I couldn't answer that.

yeah, rite. Why are you doing this to us?

[jet li]

Poate l-a ajutat cineva sa isi faca povestea mai buna de publicat, adevarul pe care a vrut sa il spuna ramane.Nu e singurul soldat care vorbeste impotriva acestui razboi :

http://www.ivaw.org/

[Strangelove]

nici un razboi nu e usor de servit publicului si cu atat mai mult cel din Iraq. dar as fi preferat o relatare onesta.

[jet li]

Nu esti interesat intr-o relatare onesta si despre 9/11 ? Ai acceptat ce au spus reporterii CNN deveniti brusc experti in prabusiri de cladiri si investigatii ?
Stiai ca abia dupa 400 de zile de la 9/11 a inceput o ancheta oficiala ? Asta la cererea familiilor victimelor.

Daca am avea si noi niste trupe straine in tara care iti intra in casa "sa caute teroristi" . Te aresteaza si ajungi intr-un fel de "Abu Ghraib", fara avocat fara nimic, acolo stai pana iti dau drumu daca mai scapi.
Nu e nici o sansa sa devii "terorist" ?
De unde stii ca nu e o relatare onesta ?