Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Gen Tommy Franks, How Will he Rule Iraq?


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 uglybastard

uglybastard

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 06:30 PM

A US civilian coordinator, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, is already presiding over committees of US bureaucrats preparing to address humanitarian relief, reconstruction, and civil administration - all part of a planning effort authorized by President Bush on Jan. 20. General Franks retains overall responsibility for a war and its aftermath.

====================

Plan: US general to run Iraq
In Ankara and Washington, the US outlined its plans for a post-Hussein Iraq. Some Iraqi opposition leaders object.

By Cameron W. Barr | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

SULAYMANIYAH, IRAQ - The head of the US military's Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks, will rule Iraq in the initial aftermath of a US invasion to overthrow President Saddam Hussein.

Administration officials briefed senators Tuesday on postwar planning, stressing that the US goal is "to liberate Iraq, not to occupy it," and last week a US envoy told leaders of Iraqi groups opposed to Hussein about American intentions.

csmontor article
  • 0

#2 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 06:32 PM

Colin Powell will distance himself (has distanced
himself) from the rumour that the US military will
take over running Iraq.....or didn't you hear him?
  • 0

#3 uglybastard

uglybastard

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 06:37 PM

What Colin Powell says is tailored for the eu community.
  • 0

#4 marv

marv

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 07:25 PM

I may be wrong, but I don't think it'll be Gen. Franks. They may keep him busy with Iran and North Korea while he settles his "scandal problem".
  • 0

#5 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 07:45 PM

Could someone please tell me how this is not a direct threat, by one UN memberstate, on the soveriegnty of another memberstate?

Doesn't the UN charter and/or currently accepted international law have something to say about blatant and official threats on another nation's sovereignty?

You know, massing an overpowering military force on the border of a comparitively defensless nation while making cavalier plans for the distribution of the victim nation's property, after the current leaders are deposed?

This is allowed?

I'm not an expert, but it seems to me this kind of thing has traditionally been discouraged, internationally speaking.

The US needs to stand down, stop the sabre rattling, and find something else to do.
Maybe conduct a nice Congressional hearing (or two), and put this whole Iraq adventure on the back burner.

It's a bad idea, and getting worse...
  • 0

#6 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 07:47 PM

Well, it isn't as if Saddam has been taken by suprise.

Just remind me: what was the date of 1441?
  • 0

#7 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 08:36 PM

The text of 1441 (adopted Nov 8, 2002) leans heavily on several resolutions that are years old.

"Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President"

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

I've no idea which of these authorized invasion in the first place, and don't feel much like looking it up right now, but I'd wager it's one of the older ones, from back when Saddam was a bona fide threat.

Today: Iraq = palooka.

The US should fight someone that matters, if we're so keen on fighting.
  • 0

#8 Marko

Marko

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 08:42 PM

Originally posted by KoWT
The text of 1441 (adopted Nov 8, 2002) leans heavily on several resolutions that are years old.

I've no idea which of these authorized invasion in the first place, and don't feel much like looking it up right now, but I'd wager it's one of the older ones, from back when Saddam was a bona fide threat.



Most of these resolutions codified what amounted to an armistice agreement between the US and Iraq in GW1. Break the agreement and it is as though the war hadn't ended.

The "legality" aspect of the US moving in and administering Iraq is a red herring here. And what everyone who's opposed seems to most studiously ignore is that at any time in the past 12 years, Saddam could have forestalled what's going to happen to him and his country.

-Marko
  • 0

#9 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 08:43 PM

So - never mind the 12 years for the moment.

Since Nov 8, '02, Saddam has had lots of time within which
to co-operate. And only now is he allowing airplanes to
look at his activities from the sky and passing a decree
disentitling his nation to possessing WsMD?

Incidentally, there are those tonnages of bioweapons and
so forth not accounted for; those missiles and engines to
make them go further; those Germans arrested for trying
to sell the creep other missiles which, by law, he is not
entitled to own.

I'd say the jig is up.
  • 0

#10 fu2

fu2

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 25082 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 08:44 PM

Like Major-General Charles Townshend in 1916. LOL :D

Invasion, bombs, gas - we've been here before
  • 0

#11 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 08:45 PM

You know, if he just came up with those bioweapons
that would solve Blix' problems, yes?

But of course that would be an admission that he'd (Saddam)
been lying all along.

What would it take - a vialfull to kill your hometown - less?
  • 0

#12 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 10:15 PM

Unless you are endorsing selective enforcement of the UN charter, I fail to see how the issue of the US threat to the sovereignty of a defenseless nation, as stated repeatedly, in public, by US government officials, is a red herring.

Invading/occupying Iraq, when the evidence of Iraq's relative danger can charitably be called flimsy (I prefer "nonexistant"), does nothing for the safety of our nation and our citizens, and beats upon our already battered international credibility.

Just because the lawyers tell you that you can do something isn't necessarily indication that you should.

Iraq's surrender in GWI doesn't amount to a "license to invade" on legal pretense alone.

I know many of us are big fans of the rule of law, I've no problems with the rule of law, it's the methods of enforcement that are making me ill.

Iraq's a palooka

This whole Iraq gig, the way Bush and co want it to play out, is so misguided and wrong, on so many levels, that I don't think this crew will be able to pull it off without suffering serious unintentional (and unforseen) consequences.

I guess some would argue that it beats the hell out of jumping Saudi Arabia, shutting down the flow of cash to the Middle East, and cozying up with the likes of Russia and Venezuela, and all the dire economics such a shift would cause, but it's kind of an ignominious end to the idea that our leaders would somehow manage to make things better, instead of worse.
  • 0

#13 marv

marv

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 11:02 PM

The Gulf War didn't end with an Iraqi surrender. The war was suspended in a truce contingent upon Iraq observing certain obligations set forth in the UN resolutions. This isn't "Gulf War II", it's a truce about to be called off because of Iraq's violations of its agreements.
  • 0

#14 uglybastard

uglybastard

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 11:15 PM

In a way, with coalition planes dodging Saddam's missiles every week for twelve years, you can say Gulf War I never stopped.
  • 0

#15 Atheris

Atheris

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 15 February 2003 - 11:40 PM

Marv...

You're right on the money!
  • 0

#16 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 08 March 2004 - 06:36 PM

poorly
  • 0

#17 sb11

sb11

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46633 posts

Posted 08 March 2004 - 06:45 PM

Franks and Garner are gone

Paul Bremer is in..
a member of Kissinger Associates

.....
Howie C: We know you've sinned
but give us a couple bucks
and we'll send you
a gift certificate
to heaven.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru