Skip

1779 posts tagged with IRAQ.
Displaying 1751 through 1779 of 1779. Subscribe:

Hawk hiccup? How wide is wider in a `wider war'?

Hawk hiccup? How wide is wider in a `wider war'?
    With the world dazed and everything in flux, seize the moment. I'd make a deal with Ankara right now to move across Turkey's border and annex the northern third of Iraq.
    Safire has been Monday-morning quarterbacking in his column since September 11. (He suggested the FBI wasn't doing enough to "deprogram" material witnesses with "conservative Muslim clerics".) He's made no bones about his desire to squash all terrorists, coalition be damned. He's sided with "wider war" wing of the administration, but this is by far the zaniest scheme--projected onto his ex-boss in a convo from hell. I know there are a lot of people--intelligent people--reading MeFi that support the war. Mostly our discussions have run pro/anti. The flower-children (anachronistic anarchists?) like me should sit out this one. Do any of you imperialists pig-dogs support this?
posted by rschram on Nov 5, 2001 - 28 comments

Salman Rushdie weighs in. (NYT)

Salman Rushdie weighs in. (NYT) An Iraqi writer quotes an earlier Iraqi satirist: "The disease that is in us, is from us." A British Muslim writes, "Islam has become its own enemy." A Lebanese friend, returning from Beirut, tells me that in the aftermath of the attacks on Sept. 11, public criticism of Islamism has become much more outspoken. Many commentators have spoken of the need for a Reformation in the Muslim world.
posted by semmi on Nov 2, 2001 - 20 comments

CNN Chief orders "balance" in war coverage.

CNN Chief orders "balance" in war coverage. Earlier this year, CNN Chief Walter Isaacson got chummy with GOP lawmakers and begged them for tips on how to attract more conservative viewers. Next, he tried to bring Rush Limbaugh to CNN. Now he's issued a memo to his reporters, urging them "to balance images of civilian devastation in Afghan cities with reminders that the Taliban harbors murderous terrorists, saying it "seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan." Is this "balance", or is he urging CNN to gloss over the realities of what is happening in Afghanistan?
posted by mattpusateri on Oct 31, 2001 - 37 comments

From a piece in the NYTimes today, Home Front Is Minefield for President: "The lesson we're learning," one administration official said today, "is that you can bomb the wrong place in Afghanistan and not take much heat for it. But don't mess up at the post office."

Leave it to the White House to come away with exactly the wrong interpretation. But the facts are there, too -- most Americans are more concerned about the (relatively slight) risk of getting Anthrax than the rather significant risk that, if we screw up in Afghanistan, we might lose the current coalition against terrorism, Bin Laden, and any hope for "homeland security" for a long time to come....
posted by mattpfeff on Oct 25, 2001 - 12 comments

Iraq 'behind US anthrax outbreaks'

Iraq 'behind US anthrax outbreaks' First story I have seen ascribing responsibility.........maybe we should ask the same Pakistani immigrant student at New Utrecht High School in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn who, according to MSNBC, shot his mouth off on September 6 about the coming World Trade Center attack.
posted by Voyageman on Oct 13, 2001 - 15 comments

Terror and Liberalism

Terror and Liberalism I have found this piece in The American Prospect to be one of the most balenced pieces I have yet come across. It considers all aspects of the terrorist groups--Israel, American policy, poverty, Iraq, fundamentalisim, history of the area, westernization, etc and finds the rights and wrongs in each, offering finally a way to cope with things in the future while at the same time dealing with present needs. In other words, it avoids the overly simplistic formulas offered by so many stalwarts of the far Right or far Left.
posted by Postroad on Oct 5, 2001 - 12 comments

Did Osama leave Afghanistan? Is he in Somalia? Does anyone really know?
posted by raaka on Sep 22, 2001 - 67 comments

Powell vs. The Pentagon.

Powell vs. The Pentagon. According to CNN, Colin Powell is "pushing for a limited military component," and wants to place more emphasis on financial, legal, political and diplomatic tools. But (as you might expect), the Pentagon wouldn't mind taking down Saddam Hussein while we're in the neighborhood. In other CNN news, the US appears sensitive to the need to support its decisions, and will be making the case for bin Laden's guilt to the Pakistanis. I find both of these items somewhat encouraging. How about you?
posted by pardonyou? on Sep 21, 2001 - 21 comments

This smells of opportunism?

This smells of opportunism? Is the Iraqi government using our recent war fervor to lift their economic bans? We now have a new enemy, so the old ones are now our friends? Saddam's comment on humanitariasm simply makes me cringe.
posted by Benway on Sep 20, 2001 - 5 comments

Was a US attack on the Taliban been in the works since July?

Was a US attack on the Taliban been in the works since July? According to this BBC article, the US had been planning a "military action", for the end of October, since mid July. The plan was to invade Afghanistan,oust the Taliban, and install a moderate government, possibly under former king Zahir Shah. Are the attacks last week simply going to legitimize this pre-existing plan? Or am I simply being too paranoid?
posted by bshort on Sep 18, 2001 - 32 comments

Is this Saddam's work?

Is this Saddam's work? CBS News: "United States has received an intelligence report that Mohammed Atta, the hijacker who is named as the pilot of the first plane to strike the World Trade Centers, met early this year somewhere in Europe with the head of the Iraqi intelligence service." CNN is reporting it too.
posted by owillis on Sep 18, 2001 - 30 comments

Iran launches missile attack on Iraq

Iran launches missile attack on Iraq Anyone seen this reported by other sources?
posted by dagny on Sep 18, 2001 - 10 comments

Iraq's Kurds OK with sanctions?

Iraq's Kurds OK with sanctions? (and from the Washington Post here) The Kurds in the no-fly zone recieve a fraction of the oil money under the sanctions and seem to be doing pretty well; there's food and medicine enough to go around, to say nothing of free elections and an abundance of political parties. Is there something I'm missing? It doesn't feel like it's being spun; nobody's making a big deal about it. But it does go against the conventional wisdom on sanctions...
posted by dreamless on Sep 16, 2001 - 16 comments

A Terrorist Profile Emerges That Confounds the Experts.

A Terrorist Profile Emerges That Confounds the Experts. The prototype for Muslim suicide bombers has been young, single, caught up in religious fervor and, often, desperate. They are usually promised financial security for their parents and told that they will be greeted by 70 black-eyed virgins in heaven. Though suicide is prohibited by Islamic law, some leaders have said there is an exception for soldiers in what they see as a holy war.
posted by semmi on Sep 16, 2001 - 12 comments

Iraq may have financed attacks...

Iraq may have financed attacks... Title says it all. Go read.
posted by metrocake on Sep 12, 2001 - 10 comments

Iraq rejoices. No real surprise, but let me guess: starting tomorrow, we'll see itemized lists in newspapers of every single country's reaction and where they stood. Pundits will go on television and describe just which countries you should hate the most. Is it just me or is the media really getting out of control on this?
posted by ed on Sep 12, 2001 - 28 comments

More NMD to make you nervous.

More NMD to make you nervous. If you're in an area about to be vapourised then you are safe. If you live anywhere else you are not. I live about half a blast radius away from one of the radar stations in the UK (it doesn't look like that picture anymore - some of the golfballs are now pyramids). From direct assault I maybe won't be hit but the bombs falling out of the sky on their way from Iraq to New York are pretty much going to land on my head. Cool.
posted by vbfg on Sep 3, 2001 - 8 comments

US drone lost over Iraq

US drone lost over Iraq - It seems it's only a matter of time before they shoot down a piloted plane (even if by accident). What are we still trying to accomplish over there and what would the reaction be if they succeed?
posted by revbrian on Aug 27, 2001 - 15 comments

Batman is 80 miles from the Iraqi border!

Batman is 80 miles from the Iraqi border! A new secret weapon in the US arsenal? Has the Hall of Justice relocated to Pennsylvania Ave? Or just another journalistic non-sequitur from the press pool? They should have made this the headline.
posted by tigger26 on Jul 18, 2001 - 11 comments

Media Deception and Iraq

Media Deception and Iraq
An interesting quick story-- one journalist smells a rat in an AP report about Iraq using money to buy weapons, investigates the genesis of the story, and finds more deception. Meanwhile statistics on children dying from sanctions go unpublished.
posted by chaz on Jul 11, 2001 - 8 comments

Cheney caught in lie.

Cheney caught in lie. "According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company."

That would be the same Iraq Cheney/Bush blew to smithereens for his oil buddies.
posted by owillis on Jun 23, 2001 - 9 comments

Iraq improves its oil reserves

Iraq improves its oil reserves This piece belongs with the other post I recently posted on oil and world political and military strategies. I guess that since filling my gas tank this evening I have narrowed my focus a bit, for which, apologies.
posted by Postroad on Mar 21, 2001 - 0 comments

Cut back on patrols over Iraq.

Cut back on patrols over Iraq. One day we are told by Gen Powell that we will increase pressure on Iraq. Now we are told that patrols in no flight zones to be cut back. Do we have a policy or is it made up weekly?
posted by Postroad on Mar 13, 2001 - 4 comments

Blair goes along with us to bomb Iraq.

Blair goes along with us to bomb Iraq. Britain was ready to soften boycott against Iraq. We changed Blair's mind. Drudge reports more sophisticated equipment used by Iraq supplied by China.
posted by Postroad on Feb 20, 2001 - 3 comments

America bombs Iraq. What are Dubya's intentions?
posted by quirked on Feb 16, 2001 - 35 comments

U.S. sending Patriot missles to Israel

U.S. sending Patriot missles to Israel Iraq moves troops close to Syrian border and announces it is a military exercise. The U.S. moves Patriot missle outfit to Israel with some troops and announces it is a military exercise. My trainer told me that sometimes you can overdo the exercising.
posted by Postroad on Jan 26, 2001 - 4 comments

Iraq to Donate $94 Million to Poor Americans

Iraq to Donate $94 Million to Poor Americans Interesting propaganda. But more interestingly - disregarding the donor, would the US ever accept such a donation? (How could we admit a need for charity at home when we send billions in aid abroad?) And what's next? We're not of a mindset to accept foreign meddling. What about UN relief efforts? International peacekeeping forces?
posted by Tubes on Jan 15, 2001 - 14 comments

'Gulf War Syndrome' cause?

'Gulf War Syndrome' cause? An interesting potential link (via thewebtoday).
posted by Sean Meade on Nov 15, 2000 - 5 comments

Sanctions Born Of Indifference

Sanctions Born Of Indifference The United Nations' sanctions against Iraq - which would have been lifted long ago, if not for America - have been killing 4,500 children a month for nearly 10 years now. A million people in all so far, half of them kids.

The Iraqis die because America insists the sanctions continue - despite their illegality under the principles of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, the United Nations Convention Against Genocide Convention and particularly the Geneva Convention: (Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions - 1977 Part IV, Section 1, Chapter III, Article 54)
1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.
posted by lagado on Oct 25, 2000 - 31 comments

Page: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Posts