All 4 entries tagged Iraq
October 31, 2007
Today in the ICA meeting a member told us about the Project for a New American Century. It’s a think tank (set up in 1997) that aims to significantly increase US military spending and intervention in the world so to ensure US interests are promoted. On its foundation a statement of principles was a collection of signed supporters, below are a few of its signatories:
Jeb Bush: Governor of Florida (1999-2007) and George Bush’s brother.
Donald Rumsfeld: Secretary of Defense (1975-1977, 2001-2006).
Paul Wolfewitz: Deputy Secretary of Defence (2001-2005), President of World Bank (2005-2007).
Dick Chaney: Vice President (2001-).
Dan Quayle: Vice President (1989-1993).
Zalmay Khalilzad: Ambassador; Afghanistan (2003-2005), Iraq (2005-2007), UN (2007-).
Steve Forbes: CEO Forbes Inc (publishes Forbes magazine).
October 14, 2006
This is my first post on this blog and I have decided to write about something that I feel will cause a lot of debate. General Sir Richard Dannatt has suggested that Britain should withdraw our troops from Iraq soon. This is a controversial statement but the opposite is equally controversial. I believe that we should not withdraw our troops until the situation has been sorted – but how long will this take? Dannatt has made some valid points. Many people do want to see our troops returned home.
I am interested in the debate that I hope this post will bring up. There are definitely pro’s and con’s to both arguments. I believe that it is our duty to “clear the mess that we have made by invading Iraq” but, of course, I would like to see our troops back home as soon as possible.
Sorry if I have taken the General’s comments out of context in any way. That is just how I understood the story.
June 08, 2006
Writing about web page http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5059494.stm
The BBC is reporting that Zarqawi, the leader of Al–Qaeda in Iraq has been killed. It's nice to see some good news coming out of Iraq for a change. As well as that they managed to get the remaining government positions filled – all in all a pretty good day. An informer reported the location and the Americans dropped two 500lb bombs on the location. The news got even better because they also killed other people at the top of his group of killers. Lets hope this represents a real turning point.
The US and UK were playing the strike down, though, but this is largely because they know that bombings will continue; but we can hope that without their head a power vacuum will cause internal power struggles and then they can kill themselves.
June 07, 2006
This was splashed over the front cover of the Times today.
It's the story of the Iraqi boy, apparantly a looter, who drowned in a tidal canal. A witness (discredited because has was "a self–confessed looter") described how UK soldiers forced the boy into the canal at gunpoint as a punishment.
The officers at the court martial aquitted the soldiers accused unanimously, amid much talking down of the system of prosecuting soldiers in the army.
But what, I ask, is the alternative? Soldiers with immunity? What then happens if a Haditha–type incident happens involving our troops. Perhaps it is true that these men shouldn't have brought to trial, but we need to be careful that the reaction to this doesn't criminals aren't brought to justice. Excessive trials leading to innocent verdicts is surely better than few reaching trial and killers not being brought to justice.
The real sad thing here is the injustice served to the boy in question. The article admits that, "the policy of 'wetting' looters, forcing them into dykes and ditches as punishment, was widespread and appeared to have been approved higher up the chain of command.", yet there is no mention of questions of how and why this boy died, and if it was a result of this 'wetting' policy. Surely this is the sad thing about the case, not the fact that 4 soldiers have been put on trial, then aquitted?
Maybe other papers talked these question, but I only had time to read the one over a Viva sandwich..