Originally posted by oboe
includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation
[/b]
An incredible reach.
I think you'll agree the "Occupying Authority" is making a huge effort to maintain law and order and
create a health care/sanitation system that is far better than anything they had under Saddam.
If we had made no or little effort in these areas, there might be a case. However, given the magnitude of the task and the incredible effort in manpower and money that we are making, this is a completely bogus set of stats. IMO.
You don't just wave a wand and all is well, particularly in a "country" made up of 3 different and opposing violent groups. Considering the situation, I think the "Occupying Authority" is doing awfully well.
I am frustrated that OBL has not been caught (yet),
[/b]
Aren't we all. However, I feel he will eventually be caught. He's just a criminal and eventually they all screw up.
and bewildered by the CinC's Mar 2002 statement that he doesn't know or care where OBL is.
[/b]
This is what Bush actually said on March 13, 2002:
{quote]Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I --
I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months.
This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
[/quote]
The media was hounding him about OBL, IIRC, when he was trying to focus America on a different part of his agenda. In short, a politician talking.
Still, you can see he pointed out we'll deal with him when we can/have to and we will evenutally get him in due time
From CNN, datelined April 26, 2005.
Last month, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told the BBC that Pakistani forces had their best chance of capturing bin Laden last year that but they lost the trail.
Pakistan is where most intelligence analysts suspect the al Qaeda leader is hiding, probably somewhere along the mountainous border with Afghanistan, so Musharraf's assertion that the trail has gone cold can't be good news.
Musharraf told the BBC that Pakistani forces had come close to bin Laden: "There was a time when the dragnet had closed, and we thought we knew roughly the area where he possibly could be," he said. "That was, I think, some time back ... maybe about eight to 10 months back."
The Pakistani government launched a military campaign in the previously autonomous border area of South Waziristan during the last two years. There were numerous clashes, 48 by the government's count, between the military and what it called al Qaeda militants.
The result? More than 250 government troops were killed, according to a Pakistani official. But that campaign is over, and the troops are largely gone from the border area.
Now a different approach is being tried.
This time, the U.S. government has launched a media campaign in Pakistan, using radio, TV and print ads that call on Pakistanis to give up bin Laden and other leading al Qaeda figures, in exchange for millions of dollars of rewards ($25 million for bin Laden).
So, they got close and missed. If he's in Pakistan, we can't go after him overtly with 1500 troops. Now we're trying an new tactic. Might not work but we're trying.
We all want him caught yesterday but that's not the real world, is it?
No, I don't want to go to war in North Korea. My statement about putting the troops in boats was meant to point out the insincerity of Bush's rhetoric about never resting in defending America. He was willing to send our active duty and reserve troops to invade a nation suspected of harboring WMDs - well now we've got one where no supposition is necessary.
[/b]
You apparently fail to see the difference.
You DO realize that once these nutbag dictators HAVE nukes, the situation changes dramatically?
Would you rather have a dozen NK-type situations with dictatore
in possession of nukes or would you rather prevent them from getting nukes by any means possible BEFORE they have them?
I think Bush is doing awfully well with NK considering the situation he inherited.
I do not want to deal with them without other Asian nations getting involved and putting their "face" on the line. Clinton/Carter got taken to the cleaners going it alone.
As far as "defending" America, once clowns like Kim have the nukes, you are back at the old MAD doctrine. We can invade NK and remove him; it's well within our military capability IF you are willing to accept all out unrestricted warfare. That means everything on the table, including nuclear strikes. Is that what you want? We could do it now and "win". NK doesn't really have delivery systems. They'd probably nail Seoul and Tokyo to make a point. They might ship one into a US harbor on a freighter and nail a few of our port cities... is that a good game plan in your view?
Once NK decided to make the nukes, which they did despite the Clinton/Carter, it's no longer a "conventional" scenario if it comes to military action.
So.. what do you think... let Iran get them so we have TWO "NK" situations to deal with? You're up for nuclear proliferation amongst the dictatorships of the world?
NK has them, and missiles, too. And suddenly all he want's to do is talk.
[/b]
Well, hell yes. You want to risk nuclear war? I'm thinking once the nukes are in the hands of dictators, talking is a good idea UNLESS you are willing to nuke them. Well, President Oboe... do we launch the ICBM's?
I wonder why its OK for NK (and Iran if you are right), but wasn't OK for Iraq?
[/b]
Because Iraq was found in violation of an SC resolution? By unanimous vote in "material breach"? That's a bit different, I'd say.
As for Iran, we're at essentially the same point we were at with NK when it became obvious they were cheating on the IAEA inspections and beginning to develop weapons.
We ignored the situation in NK... you want to ignore it in Iran with the same results?
