← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel
Thread ID: 9433 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2003-08-31
2003-08-31 19:59 | User Profile
From Agence France-Presse, available online at: [url=http://www.prolog.net/webnews/wed/cd/Qiraq-us.RQDy_DaV.html]http://www.prolog.net/webnews/wed/cd/Qiraq...s.RQDy_DaV.html[/url]
US politicians call for more foreign troops in Iraq, as casualties mount
August 31, 2003
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Leading US politicians, including two Democratic presidential candidates, on Sunday urged President George W. Bush to encourage more countries to deploy troops in Iraq, amid fears about the occupation's growing financial and human cost.
"Security remains a serious problem in Iraq partly because, contrary to administration assurances, our military force levels are obviously inadequate," Republican Senator John McCain wrote in The Washington Post.
"We need more foreign troops, particularly from Muslim allies such as Turkey and Pakistan," he said, adding that "it is the number and quality of military forces, not the number of countries that send them, that matters."
The rising death toll for US troops caught Americans' attention this week, as the number of soldiers killed during the occupation topped the number killed during the war.
A total of 78 US soldiers have died in accidents or other circumstances unrelated to combat in Iraq since Bush declared major operations over on May 1. Another 65 US soldiers have been killed in guerrilla attacks during that period.
US officials this week also admitted to the surging financial cost of military operations and of rebuilding Iraq, with an estimated four billion dollars spent each month just on the military.
Paul Bremer, the US administrator for Iraq, warned this week reconstruction would cost "several tens of billions of dollars".
"This is taking its toll, I think, on the American attitude toward what we're doing there," Senator Richard Durbin told ABC said of the mounting costs and casualties.
"I hope the Bush administration will have a change of heart and a change of direction and start bringing in troops from other nations, so that American soldiers can be safer, and other American soldiers can come home."
But US politicians are in near-agreement on retaining control of military operations, even if the United Nations were to take the lead in rebuilding the country.
The military operations "should be under US command, maybe a United Nations organizational effort, which gives a bridge for a lot of other people to be part of it, but under US military command," Senator Richard Lugar told Fox.
Senator Joe Lieberman, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, said the United Nations should help with peacekeeping in Iraq, with the United States heading that force.
"That's a perfect balance. It takes the pressure off of American soldiers. It brings in expertise we need to rebuild the country and keep the peace," Lieberman told CBS.
Senator John Kerry, another Democratic presidential hopeful, told NBC "this administration has made an extraordinary, disastrous decision not to bring the United Nations in in a significant way," he told NBC.
"We must go to the United Nations, we must internationalize this effort, we have to reduce the sense of American occupation, we have to take the target off of American troops," Kerry said.
He also called for increasing spending on Iraq "by whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win."
Ahmed Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, wrote in the Post said the United States should use more Iraqi forces to bolster its security effort.
"There is no need for more American or foreign troops in Iraq today," he wrote.
"America must reach out to its friends and allies in Iraq to share the burden of defeating Saddam once and for all," he said. "Only if we work as true partners will we achieve the victory that is so vital to both our countries."
2003-08-31 20:27 | User Profile
Well the US was so determined to do this thing alone, why should foreign countries help us? Many Neo-Con zealots kept saying "You can help us if you like, but it's not neccessary cause we're willing to do this alone". Well now look at what your blind propaganda brought us! Nobody stressed this point more than good ol' Rummie.
I don't think "Old Europe" is just going to forget that little comment Rummie made.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!
2003-08-31 20:48 | User Profile
The most obvious candidate for supplying troops is sh*tty little country. In fact, all American troops should be replaced with izzies.
2003-08-31 23:36 | User Profile
Keeping up on American culture and policy, foreign and domestic, is like watching the decline and fall of Rome, redux.
Any homogenous culture has been intentionally destroyed, if not supplanted, with malice aforethought by the same group that relentlessly promotes the idea that Amerikwan kultur = Absence of Kulur, i.e. Mongolian, Nigerian, Tiajuanian mishmash. These are the same folks who assert that there is no "America." Rather, Amerikwa is a land of "immigrants" with no identifiable history or ethnic identity. One need only remember the national ad campaign, in the wake of 9/11 no less , wherein every possible permutation of mongolid hominid was given a face shot and told to read "I am an Amerikwan!"
Destruction of culture, language, overrun by by foreigners whom our German relatives, in the frank, honest language of 50 years ago would characterize as "useless eaters." The majority population who dug the ditches, fought the wars, built the cities and towns, farmed the land, and conquered the continent are discriminated against BY LAW in their native country, for the ostensible purpose of righting histiorical wrongs against, among others, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics. :lol:
Meanwhile, we invade and bomb foreign countries for no geo-political purpose. Or the stated purpose being killing them to set them free, at least according to our enlightened latter 20th century Amerikwan mores.
As the politicians rush to waste America's financial, political and cultural inheritance like some character out of Dickens- believing there is no ultimate bill. California and New York are billions of dollars in the red, the Federal government in the Trillions, while we spend $1 billion dollars a week in Occupied Iraq among people who view our proffered freedoms as immoral and evil depravity.
Good. Let it all come down. Let them believe there is no cost, no ramifications, no piper to be paid. If this is how the Lord will destroy 20th century Babylon, so be it. At least in this sense, there is some hope for the future. A hope of starting again.
** The Deluge
Though giant rains put out the sun, Here stand I for a sign. Though earth be filled with waters dark, My cup is filled with wine. Tell to the trembling priests that here Under the deluge rod, One nameless, tattered, broken man Stood up, and drank to God. Sun has been where the rain is now, Bees in the heat to hum, Haply a humming maiden came, Now let the deluge come: Brown of aureole, green of garb, Straight as a golden rod, Drink to the throne of thunder now! Drink to the wrath of God. High in the wreck I held the cup, I clutched my rusty sword, I cocked my tattered feather To the glory of the Lord. Not undone were the heaven and earth, This hollow world thrown up, Before one man had stood up straight, And drained it like a cup.**
2003-08-31 23:42 | User Profile
CMB,
an excellent rant. Why don't Americans realize such a simple thing?
2003-08-31 23:54 | User Profile
CMB:
Rather, Amerikwa ...
Offtopic, but where did this term originate?
2003-08-31 23:56 | User Profile
*Originally posted by madrussian@Aug 31 2003, 17:42 * ** CMB,
an excellent rant. Why don't Americans realize such a simple thing? **
Because the schools here tell us that America is the best thing to happen since slice bread. God loves America, so the rest of you can kiss our ass!
The comparison to Rome is accurate, and indeed Americans like to say we're the greatest force since Rome, if not greater. Of course they're talking about the Pax Romana, but you should remember that the Pax Romana was not only when Rome's power was at its height, it was the beginning of its end. Just like Stalingrad was the height of Hitler's power, it was also the beginning of its end. Same thing with the Soviets in Afghanistan.
So America's days as number one are coming to end. A book to read is [url=http://drs.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=%22end+of+the+American+era%22/v=2/SID=e/l=WS1/R=1/H=0/*-http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375412158?v=glance]"The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-first Century"[/url] by Charles A. Kupchan. He refutes many of the current theories of America's role in the world, and refutes the claim that globalization will bring about peace. Once America's days as number one are over, the world will move into a more multi-polar world similar to the one in the 19th century and that globalization will probally escalate international tensions.
Kupchan talks not only about how America's day as number one are over, America's days as the melting pot maybe over as well and how America will be socially(and possibly politically) fragmented along racial/ethnic lines.
2003-09-01 00:09 | User Profile
I've come to ralize, in part from travelling in E. Europe, Deutschland, and Wankland (England), that regardless of what Americans in the 16th to 19th Century were like, modern White Amerikans are far from the rugged, individualist, freedom fighters the propaganda would lead you to believe.
I do not know any culture, save the English, that is so horrified at rocking the boat or standing up for their individual beliefs in the face of social mores.
Flouride? Alpha Centaurans? I am sure the Televitz and the tribal monopoly is responsible for 99% of the problem. In E. Europe, I don't remember ever watching TV. Czechs, Poles simply didn't give a sh*t. Hungarians less so.
Nonetheless, every man is responsible for his own fate. I know that the sentient Germans, Irish, Italians and other ethnic White gorups in NY think little differently than my post above. However, they have been successfully conned into being pacified and voting for idiots like Pataki and other Republikahns who will never reverse Amerikwanization, just adopt a "go slow" process.
The real individualists are folks like Koresh and his folks and Weaver et cetera. However nutty some of these people's views are, iin the real America, they would be left alone. Now, if they make the radar, they are raided for proof of criminality, and if they resist, are killed by the glorious legions of our representative govt.
I wonder if there were residents of Sodom and Gomorrah who prayed for God's chastisment.
2003-09-01 00:12 | User Profile
I adopted it from the Linderites. I think it aptly describes the multi-Kult PC dream of the system.
2003-09-01 00:18 | User Profile
In Russia, the analog for Televitz is Tel-avision. I am wondering, if Americans stopped watching TV, would they regain their senses? Is America a perfect mark and the current condition is very stable, and the slow boil will go to the end, or have the little changes, are to develop into a tidal wave, already started?
2003-09-01 10:56 | User Profile
**I've come to ralize, in part from travelling in E. Europe, Deutschland, and Wankland (England), that regardless of what Americans in the 16th to 19th Century were like, modern White Amerikans are far from the rugged, individualist, freedom fighters the propaganda would lead you to believe.
I do not know any culture, save the English, that is so horrified at rocking the boat or standing up for their individual beliefs in the face of social mores.**
I couldn't agree with you more Campion! I often laugh at the modern American notions of "freedom" and "individuality". "Freedom" is the freedom to drive a gas-guzzling SUV and not have anybody tell you can't. Seriosuly whenever the argument of banning or restricting SUVs ever comes up, people repiled "but it's my FREEDOM to drive one".
"Individuality" today is drinking Pepsi or 7-Up(Are you an "Un"?). In other words, individuality means narcisscism. It's so pathetic!
**I am wondering, if Americans stopped watching TV, would they regain their senses? **
They might! They might also get ther senses if they started using the internet for more useful purposes besides looking up porn or the latest gossip.
"Yeah Homer, you're the number one non-porno website on the net, which makes you 10 Billionith overrall!" From the Simpsons.
2003-09-03 11:02 | User Profile
What amuses me is the idiots who are always reminding their audiences that "we are the world's only superpower." The fools who always bleat that remind me of the "Peanuts" character "Linus" with his "security blanket." They have in the past been arrogant about this, but today when I hear them I sense a certain shrillness and almost pleading in their voices to be believed.
We are a "superpower" only in outward appearance. Anyone who looks into the internal structure can see the rot brought about by such nonsense as diversity and multiculturalism. The fools that preach this are sold to the public as some sort of historians and folks of great insight when in truth they haven't learned anything about history or human nature. Instead they were blinded by their own corruption and only now do they-- that is the realists and not the fanatics, are starting to realize that they may have lit the powder train that I hope blows them to the hell that they so richly deserve.
Campion, I enjoyed the poem!
2003-09-03 20:52 | User Profile
if Americans stopped watching TV, would they regain their senses?
Isn't that putting the chicken before the egg?
They'd have to first come to their senses enough to turn it off and that won't happen unless someone on the tube tells them to do so. :P