West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: infinite59 on April 07, 2004, 08:32:23 AM
-
Shiite leader Al-Sodr says that "The little serpent has left, and now the big serpent is here." He encourages resistance against the occupying Americans. 30 US Troops dead in 3 days.
American troops dying all for free oil and Isreal. US Senetor Kennedy calls war unjust and says it is another "Vietnam". Vietnam, meaning an extended war and occupation of a foriegn country, with large numbers of American casulties.
US says it will return "soveriegnty" to Iraq, but yet still run run and dictate policy to the Iraqi's from the US Embassy with 110,000 occupying troops.
-
I found this article for people reading this and thinking what the fuck is this guy blabbing on about as he doesn't really make sense with his half sentence summarys and name dropping of largely unknown people.
Bremer has destroyed my country
Even the pro-US manager of Iraq's Pepsi plant feels betrayed by an occupation which has spawned fear, hatred and chaos
Naomi Klein in Baghdad
Saturday April 3, 2004
The Guardian
'Do you have any rooms?" we ask the hotelier. She looks us over, dwelling on my travel partner's bald, white head.
"No," she replies.
We try not to notice that there are 60 room keys in pigeonholes behind her desk - the place is empty.
"Will you have a room soon? Maybe next week?"
She hesitates. "Ahh ... No."
We return to our current hotel - the one we want to leave because there are bets on when it is going to get hit - and flick on the TV: the BBC is showing footage of Richard Clarke's testimony before the September 11 commission, and a couple of pundits are arguing about whether invading Iraq has made America safer.
They should try finding a hotel room in this city, where the US occupation has unleashed a wave of anti-American rage so intense that it now extends not only to US troops, occupation officials and their contractors but also to foreign journalists, aid workers, their translators and pretty much anyone else associated with the Americans. Which is why we couldn't begrudge the hotelier her decision: if you want to survive in Iraq, it's wise to stay the hell away from people who look like us. (We thought about explaining that we were Canadians, but all the American reporters are sporting the maple leaf - that is, when they aren't trying to disappear behind their newly purchased headscarves.)
The US occupation chief, Paul Bremer, hasn't started wearing a hijab yet, and is instead tackling the rise of anti-Americanism with his usual foresight. Baghdad is blanketed with inept psy-ops organs like Baghdad Now, filled with fawning articles about how Americans are teaching Iraqis about press freedom. "I never thought before that the coalition could do a great thing for the Iraqi people," one trainee is quoted as saying. "Now I can see it on my eyes that they are doing good things for my country and the accomplishment they made. I wish my people can see that, the way I see it."
Unfortunately, the Iraqi people recently saw another version of press freedom when Bremer ordered US troops to shut down a newspaper run by supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr. The militant Shia cleric has been preaching that Americans are behind the attacks on Iraqi civilians and condemning the interim constitution as a "terrorist law." So far, al-Sadr has refrained from calling on his supporters to join the armed resistance, but many here are predicting that closing down the newspaper - a nonviolent means of resisting the occupation - was just the push he needed. But then, recruiting for the resistance has always been a specialty of the presidential envoy to Iraq: Bremer's first act after being tapped by Bush was to fire 400,000 Iraqi soldiers, refuse to give them their rightful pensions, but allow them to hold on to their weapons - in case they needed them later.
While US soldiers were padlocking the door of the newspaper's office, I found myself at what I thought would be an oasis of pro-Americanism, the Baghdad Soft Drinks Company. On May 1 this bottling plant will start producing one of the most powerful icons of American culture: Pepsi-Cola. I figured that if there was anyone left in Baghdad willing to defend the Americans, it would be Hamid Jassim Khamis, the Baghdad Soft Drinks Company's managing director. I was wrong.
"All the trouble in Iraq is because of Bremer," Khamis told me, flanked by a line-up of 30 Pepsi and 7-Up bottles. "He didn't listen to Iraqis. He doesn't know anything about Iraq. He destroyed the country and tried to rebuild it again, and now we are in chaos."
These are words you would expect to hear from religious extremists or Saddam loyalists, but hardly from the likes of Khamis. It's not just that his Pepsi deal is the highest-profile investment by a US multinational in Iraq's new "free market". It's also that few Iraqis supported the war more staunchly than Khamis. And no wonder: Saddam executed both his brothers and Khamis was forced to resign as managing director of the bottling plant in 1999 after Saddam's son Uday threatened his life. When the Americans overthrew Saddam, "you can't imagine how much relief we felt", he says.
After the Ba'athist plant manager was forced out, Khamis returned to his old job. "There is a risk doing business with the Americans," he says. Several months ago, two detonators were discovered in front of the factory gates. And Khamis is still shaken from an attempted assassination three weeks ago. He was on his way to work when he was carjacked and shot at, and there was no doubt that this was a targeted attack; one of the assailants was heard asking another, "Did you kill the manager?"
Khamis used to be happy to defend his pro-US position, even if it meant arguing with friends. But one year after the invasion, many of his neighbours in the industrial park have gone out of business. "I don't know what to say to my friends anymore," he says. "It's chaos."
His list of grievances against the occupation is long: corruption in the awarding of reconstruction contracts, the failure to stop the looting; the failure to secure Iraq's borders - both from foreign terrorists and from unregulated foreign imports. Iraqi companies, still suffering from the sanctions and the looting, have been unable to compete.
Most of all, Khamis is worried about how these policies have fed the country's unemployment crisis, creating far too many desperate people. He also notes that Iraqi police officers are paid less than half what he pays his assembly line workers, "which is not enough to survive"., The normally soft-spoken Khamis becomes enraged when talking about the man in charge of "rebuilding" Iraq. "Paul Bremer has caused more damage than the war, because the bombs can damage a building but if you damage people there is no hope."
I have gone to the mosques and street demonstrations and listened to Muqtada al-Sadr's supporters shout "Death to America, Death to the Jews", and it is indeed chilling. But it is the profound sense of disappointment and betrayal expressed by a pro-US businessman running a Pepsi plant that attests to the depths of the US-created disaster here. "I'm disappointed, not because I hate the Americans," Khamis tells me, "but because I like them. And when you love someone and they hurt you, it hurts even more."
When we leave the bottling plant in late afternoon, the streets of US-occupied Baghdad are filled with al-Sadr supporters vowing bloody revenge for the attack on their newspaper. A spokesperson for Bremer is defending the decision on the grounds that the paper "was making people think we were out to get them".
A growing number of Iraqis are certainly under that impression, but it has far less to do with an inflammatory newspaper than with the inflammatory actions of the US occupation authority. As the June 30 "handover" approaches, Bremer has unveiled a slew of new tricks to hold on to power long after "sovereignty" has been declared.
Some recent highlights. At the end of March, building on his Order 39 of last September, Bremer passed yet another law further opening up Iraq's economy to foreign ownership, a law that Iraq's next government is prohibited from changing under the terms of the interim constitution. Bremer also announced the establishment of several independent regulators, which will drastically reduce the power of Iraqi government ministries. For instance, the Financial Times reports that "officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority said the regulator would prevent communications minister Haider al-Abadi, a thorn in the side of the coalition, from carrying out his threat to cancel licences the coalition awarded to foreign-managed consortia to operate three mobile networks and the national broadcaster."
The CPA has also confirmed that after June 30, the $18.4bn that the US government is spending on reconstruction will be administered by its embassy in Iraq. The money will be spent over five years and will fundamentally redesign Iraq's most basic infrastructure, including its electricity, water, oil and communications sectors, as well as its courts and police. Iraq's future governments will have no say in the construction of these core sectors of Iraqi society. Retired rear admiral David Nash, who heads the Project Management Office, which administers the funds, describes the $18.4bn as "a gift from the American people to the people of Iraq".
He appears to have forgotten the part about gifts being something you actually give up. And in the same eventful week, US engineers began construction on 14 "enduring bases" in Iraq, capable of housing the 110,000 soldiers who will be posted here for at least two more years. Even though the bases are being built with no mandate from an Iraqi government, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations in Iraq, called them "a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East".
The US occupation authority has also found a sneaky way to maintain control over Iraq's armed forces. Bremer has issued an executive order stating that even after the interim Iraqi government has been established, the Iraqi army will answer to US commander Lt General Ricardo Sanchez. In order to pull this off, Washington is relying on a legalistic reading of a clause in UN security council resolution 1511, which puts US forces in charge of Iraq's security until "the completion of the political process" in Iraq. Since the "political process" in Iraq is never-ending, so it seems is US military control.
In the same flurry of activity, the CPA announced that it would put further constraints on the Iraqi military by appointing a national security adviser for Iraq. This US appointee would have powers equivalent to those held by Condoleezza Rice and will stay in office for a five-year term, long after Iraq is scheduled to have made the transition to a democratically elected government.
There is one piece of this country, though, that the US government is happy to cede to the people of Iraq: the hospitals. On March 27 Bremer announced that he had withdrawn the senior US advisers from Iraq's health ministry, making it the first sector to achieve "full authority" in the US occupation.
Taken together, these latest measures paint a telling picture of what a "free Iraq" will look like: the United States will maintain its military and corporate presence through 14 enduring military bases and the largest US embassy in the world. It will hold on to authority over Iraq's armed forces, its security and economic policy and the design of its core infrastructure - but the Iraqis can deal with their decrepit hospitals all by themselves, complete with their chronic drug shortages and lack of the most basic sanitation capacity. (The US health and human services secretary, Tommy Thompson, revealed just how low a priority this was when he commented that Iraq's hospitals would be fixed if the Iraqis "just washed their hands and cleaned the crap off the walls".)
On nights when there are no nearby explosions, we hang out at the hotel, jumping at the sound of car doors slamming. Sometimes we flick on the news and eavesdrop on a faraway debate about whether invading Iraq has made Americans safer.
Few seem interested in the question of whether the invasion has made Iraqis feel safer, which is too bad because the questions are intimately related. As Khamis says: "It's not the war that caused the hatred. It's what they did after. What they are doing now."
· A version of this article first appeared in the Nation
www.nologo.org
-
I'm now gonna call Vietnam "Ted Kennedy's Brother's Iraq."
I will also continue to call Jack Daniels "Ted Kennedy's Pepsi"
-
Let's see here:
The US had 31,770 volunteer deaths, 17,647 drafted military deaths, 624 reservists die, 68 national guard deaths, and 203 unknown deaths in Vietnam. Total deaths = 50,312
Iraq, so far, has had something like 600+ deaths, all volunteer service.
Is Iraq really an accurate comparison to Vietnam?
What truly upset about this comparison to Vietnam, is that this sort of thing does contribute to the decline of morale in our troops overseas. I'm not implying that critical discourse is bad, just that people should consider the effect of their actions and words.
As support for the war effort wanes, we might actually be faced with a Vietnam equivalent, not in the number of dead/killed. But in that the troops could return to a country not as the heroes that they are, but unappreciated and reviled. That would be terrible.
So, support your troops at the very least. Call for a pull-out or whatever, but remember that we have countrymen over there that are part of a volunteer military that have risked or laid down their lives for your freedom to flame away on these boards.
Inifinte, you're a fucking moron. John Walker 2.0 sums you up nicely.
-
Let's see here:
The US had 31,770 volunteer deaths, 17,647 drafted military deaths, 624 reservists die, 68 national guard deaths, and 203 unknown deaths in Vietnam. Total deaths = 50,312
Iraq, so far, has had something like 600+ deaths, all volunteer service.
Is Iraq really an accurate comparison to Vietnam?
What truly upset about this comparison to Vietnam, is that this sort of thing does contribute to the decline of morale in our troops overseas. I'm not implying that critical discourse is bad, just that people should consider the effect of their actions and words.
As support for the war effort wanes, we might actually be faced with a Vietnam equivalent, not in the number of dead/killed. But in that the troops could return to a country not as the heroes that they are, but unappreciated and reviled. That would be terrible.
So, support your troops at the very least. Call for a pull-out or whatever, but remember that we have countrymen over there that are part of a volunteer military that have risked or laid down their lives for your freedom to flame away on these boards.
Inifinte, you're a fucking moron. John Walker 2.0 sums you up nicely.
I think the calling it a "Vietnam" has more to do with the fact that it was an unjustified war, a war we had no reason to fight in, a war that that we had no right to fight, etc. The death toll is WAY lower than that of Vietnam, but it still is higher than expected.
-
I'm now gonna call Vietnam "Ted Kennedy's Brother's Iraq."
I will also continue to call Jack Daniels "Ted Kennedy's Pepsi"
LOL. Funny, yet true.
-
I think the calling it a "Vietnam" has more to do with the fact that it was an unjustified war, a war we had no reason to fight in, a war that that we had no right to fight, etc. The death toll is WAY lower than that of Vietnam, but it still is higher than expected.
You're wrong. The reason Ted Kennedy (and he has stated this) has given for calling it "Vietnam" is because he says it's a "Quagmire" whatever the fuck that is. It's a political talking point that the dems like to throw about about whatever they can pin on Bush... "It's a quagmire" people don't even talk like that, but yet the word keeps popping up in all these liberal mouthpieces out there. Why? .. because they're not even inspired enough to come up with their OWN wrong bullshit.
Anyways, The simple reason this isn't like Vietnam is because when we pulled out of 'Nam, the regime was still in power and had actually expanded and taken over some further cities AFTER our invasion. 50 thousand died, etc.
Compare that to 600 dead (or whatever the number is) today, and a toppled regime, a new government, and resources like power and water plants in better shape now than before the war, and you most definately can't intelligently compare this to Vietnam. Of course nobody's saying Teddie's intelligent. Hell, the only "I" word that describes him is "Inebriated".
-
I think the calling it a "Vietnam" has more to do with the fact that it was an unjustified war, a war we had no reason to fight in, a war that that we had no right to fight, etc. The death toll is WAY lower than that of Vietnam, but it still is higher than expected.
You're wrong. The reason Ted Kennedy (and he has stated this) has given for calling it "Vietnam" is because he says it's a "Quagmire" whatever the fuck that is. It's a political talking point that the dems like to throw about about whatever they can pin on Bush... "It's a quagmire" people don't even talk like that, but yet the word keeps popping up in all these liberal mouthpieces out there. Why? .. because they're not even inspired enough to come up with their OWN wrong bullshit.
Anyways, The simple reason this isn't like Vietnam is because when we pulled out of 'Nam, the regime was still in power and had actually expanded and taken over some further cities AFTER our invasion. 50 thousand died, etc.
Compare that to 600 dead (or whatever the number is) today, and a toppled regime, a new government, and resources like power and water plants in better shape now than before the war, and you most definately can't intelligently compare this to Vietnam. Of course nobody's saying Teddie's intelligent. Hell, the only "I" word that describes him is "Inebriated".
As I had stated, it has nothing to do with the number of deaths because the casualties in the two wars are not comparable. My statement about it being over the war's justification was just my opinion, hence the words "I think...". But thanks for clarifying. Trauma, do you not think that when a Democrat is in office, Republicans bust the same hypocritical bullshit as the Democrats are doing now?
-
Do some research into the reasons we fought Vietnam.
-
Do some research into the reasons we fought Vietnam.
I know the reasons, but a lot of our citizens didn't see those reasons as just causes to go and fight the war there.
-
Do some research into the reasons we fought Vietnam.
Most citizens don't know the reasons we went to Vietnam. They still don't know the reasons. Just like most citizens don't really understand why we are in Iraq. Which is why Senetor Kennedy's comparison was appropriate.
Let me break it down and educate people with what little knowledge I have; for those interested in learning.
*********
Iraq
We are in Iraq primarily for oil and as a favor to Isreal.
Vietnam
We invaded Vietnam primarily to stop the spread of communism and protect U.S. economic interests in the Far East. Southeast Asia, especially Malaya and Indonesia, is the principal world source of natural rubber and tin, and a producer of petroleum and other strategically important commodities...also...Japan depended on the rice of Southeast Asia, and Communist victory there would "make it extremely difficult to prevent Japan's eventual accomodation to communism."
-
"Most citizens don't know the reasons we went to Vietnam. They still don't know the reasons. Just like most citizens don't really understand why we are in Iraq. Which is why Senetor Kennedy's comparison was appropriate. "
No, Senator Kennedy, has stated, the reason he said that was because of the 'quagmire' we're in there. It's not about the reasoning, he's saying, actively, that it is as violent as Vietnam. Senator Kennedy is a dumbass, and you're aligning yourself with like company.
-
"Most citizens don't know the reasons we went to Vietnam. They still don't know the reasons. Just like most citizens don't really understand why we are in Iraq. Which is why Senetor Kennedy's comparison was appropriate. "
No, Senator Kennedy, has stated, the reason he said that was because of the 'quagmire' we're in there. It's not about the reasoning, he's saying, actively, that it is as violent as Vietnam. Senator Kennedy is a dumbass, and you're aligning yourself with like company.
Respectfully, I disagree with you on two fronts. Because, not only is the US murky in it's reasoning for going into Iraq, but Iraq is also a quagmire, just like Vietnam. Remember, those Vietnam statistics were over an 8 year period! The number of troops injured in this war of one year is comparable to the number injured in a year of fighting in Vietnam. Something else that must be considered is that up until now, America has been fighting a minority group. The Shii'a are the majority in Iraq at 60%. Up until now the clerics have been able to keep their followers at bay. All it would take is for the most popular Shiia leader Sistani to issue a fatwa of aggression against the US occupiers; and it may become even worse than Vietnam.
-
word, Sistani is the key here. He can move against Sadr or the States.
-
I agree on the Sistani point...
I just don't understand the Shii'a right now... Do they have ANY sense of history? Under The British, they were doing the same shit back in the day, so the British put a Sunni "leader" in charge. If they really wanna cause trouble, why now? Why not wait untill the June 30th transfer of power to act up? It just really dosen't make any sense, and seems like they are repeating the past.
-
I agree on the Sistani point...
I just don't understand the Shii'a right now... Do they have ANY sense of history? Under The British, they were doing the same shit back in the day, so the British put a Sunni "leader" in charge. If they really wanna cause trouble, why now? Why not wait untill the June 30th transfer of power to act up? It just really dosen't make any sense, and seems like they are repeating the past.
I would assume from afar that the Iraqi's don't care much about that June 30th date. America is not really handing over any real power. Most the power will reside within the world's largest U.S. Embassy, backed by 110,000 troops. The Shii'a have been attacked and had their newspaper shut down. The Iraqi government was handpicked by the occupying forces. The fledgling Iraqi government will be capable of tackling little more than drawing up a budget and carrying out day to day functions. The United States will still be dictating the policy.
-
^^Why do you have the same avatar as Lincoln?
-
generals are saying they need more troops politicians ie rumsfeld think they know better. bush thinks everything is under control. Colin Powell a vietnam veteran says (in private) there was never an exit strategy and said he has always had doubts, plus in 1999 he was saying iraq didn't have the capability to pose a threat
things are looking very bad if you ask me everything is spiraling out of control
-
generals are saying they need more troops politicians ie rumsfeld think they know better. bush thinks everything is under control. Colin Powell a vietnam veteran says (in private) there was never an exit strategy and said he has always had doubts, plus in 1999 he was saying iraq didn't have the capability to pose a threat
things are looking very bad if you ask me everything is spiraling out of control
Links to back any of that up?
I'd really like to see where Colin Powell said that...
-
i saw it in a documentary or on the news i dont remember but i'll look
-
couldn't find the 1999 speach but here is some stuff
Jack Straw and his US counterpart, Colin Powell, privately expressed serious doubts about the quality of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programme at the very time they were publicly trumpeting it to get UN support for a war on Iraq, the Guardian has learned.
Their deep concerns about the intelligence - and about claims being made by their political bosses, Tony Blair and George Bush - emerged at a private meeting between the two men shortly before a crucial UN security council session on February 5.
The meeting took place at the Waldorf hotel in New York, where they discussed the growing diplomatic crisis. The exchange about the validity of their respective governments' intelligence reports on Iraq lasted less than 10 minutes, according to a diplomatic source who has read a transcript of the conversation.
The foreign secretary reportedly expressed concern that claims being made by Mr Blair and President Bush could not be proved. The problem, explained Mr Straw, was the lack of corroborative evidence to back up the claims.
Much of the intelligence were assumptions and assessments not supported by hard facts or other sources.
Mr Powell shared the concern about intelligence assessments, especially those being presented by the Pentagon's office of special plans set up by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz.
Mr Powell said he had all but "moved in" with US intelligence to prepare his briefings for the UN security council, according to the transcripts.
But he told Mr Straw he had come away from the meetings "apprehensive" about what he called, at best, circumstantial evidence highly tilted in favour of assessments drawn from them, rather than any actual raw intelligence.
Mr Powell told the foreign secretary he hoped the facts, when they came out, would not "explode in their faces".
What are called the "Waldorf transcripts" are being circulated in Nato diplomatic circles. It is not being revealed how the transcripts came to be made; however, they appear to have been leaked by diplomats who supported the war against Iraq even when the evidence about Saddam Hussein's programme of weapons of mass destruction was fuzzy, and who now believe they were lied to.
People circulating the transcripts call themselves "allied sources supportive of US war aims in Iraq at the time".
The transcripts will fuel the controversy in Britain and the US over claims that London and Washington distorted and exaggerated the intelligence assessments about Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programme.
An unnamed intelligence official told the BBC on Thursday that a key claim in the dossier on Iraq's weapons released by the British government last September - that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack within 45 minutes of an order - was inserted on the instructions of officials in 10 Downing Street.
Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, admitted the claim was made by "a single source; it wasn't corroborated".
Speaking yesterday in Warsaw, the Polish capital, Mr Blair said the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in the dossier was "evidence the truth of which I have absolutely no doubt about at all".
He said he had consulted the heads of the security and intelligence services before emphatically denying that Downing Street had leaned on them to strengthen their assessment of the WMD threat in Iraq. He insisted he had "absolutely no doubt" that proof of banned weapons would eventually be found in Iraq. Whitehall sources make it clear they do not share the prime minister's optimism.
The Waldorf transcripts are all the more damaging given Mr Powell's dramatic 75-minute speech to the UN security council on February 5, when he presented declassified satellite images, and communications intercepts of what were purported to be conversations between Iraqi commanders, and held up a vial that, he said, could contain anthrax.
Evidence, he said, had come from "people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam is really up to".
Some of the intelligence used by Mr Powell was provided by Britain.
The US secretary of state, who was praised by Mr Straw as having made a "most powerful and authoritative case", also drew links between al-Qaida and Iraq - a connection dismissed by British intelligence agencies. His speech did not persuade France, Germany and Russia, who stuck to their previous insistence that the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq should be given more time to do their job.
The Waldorf meeting took place a few days after Downing Street presented Mr Powell with a separate dossier on Iraq's banned weapons which he used to try to strengthen the impact of his UN speech.
A few days later, Downing Street admitted that much of its dossier was lifted from academic sources and included a plagiarised section written by an American PhD student.
Mr Wolfowitz set up the Pentagon's office of special plans to counter what he and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, considered inadequate - and unwelcome - intelligence from the CIA.
He angered critics of the war this week in a Vanity Fair magazine interview in which he cited "bureaucratic reasons" for the White House focusing on Iraq's alleged arsenal as the reason for the war. In reality, a "huge" reason for the conflict was to enable the US to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia, he said.
Earlier in the week, Mr Rumsfeld suggested that Saddam might have destroyed such weapons before the war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,967548,00.html
COLIN POWELL AGAINST US RAIDS ON IRAQ
An interesting revelation has been made in yesterday-s edition of the Spanish daily newspaper, El Mundo, which states that Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, raised strong objections against the bombing of Baghdad.
The newspaper states that Powell supports economic sanctions but questioned the necessity of conducting a bombing campaign. It is stated that President Bush swayed more to the side of Vice-President Dick Cheney and the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld..
These positions were taken at an emergency White House meeting last Thursday, at which George Bush gave his permission for the raids.
The reaction from the USA-s NATO allies at the time of the Gulf War should be highlighted v virtually all of them pronounced themselves against this attack and even in Britain, the other perpetrator of this act of aggression, the press was highly critical.
France was particularly irritated, since it had not even been informed of the plan to attack, neither had Spain nor Turkey.
As for Iraq, Foreign Minister Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf stated in a letter to UNO Secretary-General Kofi Annan:
?This aggression happens at a moment in which Iraq prepares to organise a global dialogue with the Secretary-General of the UNO, which creates in the Security Council a greater responsibility to condemn this actŠ.
The Iraqi press has already coined a new nickname for George Bush: the new dwarf at the Black House.
Britain and the USA will have a lot of explaining to do in the coming weeks.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/2001/02/20/2617.html
-
You realize that Pravda still hasn't found it's post Cold-war voice.
They claim that Saddam Hussien had a "Crashed UFO"
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/31/42821.html
Here's some more "Fun" Stories:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/04/30/28149.html
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/04/35979.html
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/10/11/38027.html
Pravda isn't a good source...
-
Also, on the first story you posted up, this is it's lead in:
Dan Plesch and Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday May 31, 2003
The Guardian
The following apology was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and Clarifications column, Thursday June 5 2003
In our front page lead on May 31 headlined "Straw, Powell had serious doubts over their Iraqi weapons claims," we said that the foreign secretary Jack Straw and his US counterpart Colin Powell had met at the Waldorf Hotel in New York shortly before Mr Powell addressed the United Nations on February 5. Mr Straw has now made it clear that no such meeting took place.
-
yea but that still doesn't mean it didn't happen it just makes the article less credible, and i didn't know about the other site.
-
IMO if somebody who the article is about says it didn't happen, then most likely it didn't...
-
^ Exactly. More ignorance exposed. I love how people don't know what the fucks going on, so they read some fucking site or story with a M.O. and an agenda to push... then later when the site retracts the story, and apologizes, everybody's already ran with it like it's gold.
Reminds me of the M.J. "Child Abuse" scandal. Nobody ever reported that the Social Services department found him innocent... they just want to report that he was accused.