Letter from a friend in Iraq

by Yerusalyim 117 Replies latest social current

• 

  Jayson

  would you characterize the UN as generally proactive, or reactive?- onacruse

  As to what? The humanitarian issues, war, disarmarment, peacekeeping, the dream of become a, if not the world power; all are differnet in the M.O. [imo.]

  The UN to me; it is self serving and has little interest in true harmony. It is a soap box for thugs to air their hate of all things american. And a place for the U.S. to pretend to give other countries a say in things. It has no real ability to act to anything without the USA supporting it, a big reason for the jealousy. And that is unfair no matter your position on it. There was the USSR & the USA. The USSR is a part of history. To try to get a new balance of power is not going to happen. The world does not want to become one big Americanism playground. Simon said "US" as in "we" need to stop meddling in other countries affairs. I agree with him. Stop the spread of raw capitalism and democracy to the 3rd world. It does not work. To a certian level the big boys need to isolate themselves and have rules of ethical treatment of people for a country to join the club[UNism}. That would not be the UN as it is now. It also would mean that both the U.S. and the West would have to give up manipulating power.

  Have you ever thought about how much oil costs. Not just the OPEC cost per barrel but the UN, the wars and arming and disarming, the UN, and the debt and all of it? How much does it cost? Like I keep saying "End Open Enrollment In The UN" or, end the UN and create something new.

  All of this towards Iraq.... It's a place that is going to be a mess for years. Period. In a Big Mac give it to me now society it's going to be a mess forever. For those who have some patience you understand it is going to take awhile. At least now there is some hope.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Gam,

  Ya got a set of huevos on ya dude, I assume you're not the first one MAJ R's wife has heard from. Man o man, get your name out on a public forum and BOOM!

  Well, as I said, Maj R confirms that nothing was added to the version of the letter seen here.
• 

  Satanus

  Yeru

  Edited to say that maybe your friend wasn't a total plagiarist, because he sent it as a sort of private email......

  SS
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Jayson,

  That's a question, isn't it. On the one hand he or someone else edited the letter, and it wasn't sent as a "forwarded" item. On the other hand, he didn't sign it, and it was sent to some number of email addresses. I don't know what his intention was.
• 

  Gamaliel

  Yeru,

  I didn't know at first that I was speaking to his wife, I just called the Church. Actually I called a local Lutheran organization in that city that was only too happy to give me the number of the Church, and Audrey Rydbom answered when I called the number. It way too easy! But this is a rather sensitive issue now, but she appreciated a sympathetic ear, and that I could sense the tough situation that had been created for her. She talked about how difficult it's gotten with so many people calling, and I apologized and started to say good-bye, but she was happy to continue talking.

  The most straightforward explanation is the one you gave, that your friend, the Major, liked the letter and sent it out because he believed it would be valuable support to everyone who believed likewise. No harm done. If he was the one who edited out Major Rydbom's info, then he made a mistake, but I'm sure he meant well, and was sure at the time it was for the greater good. It's just as possible that he received it like that and didn't even know it had been edited.

  It's not much of a stretch to believe in the scenario I'll propose below. I am beginning to believe it after speaking with Audrey Rydbom, although I didn't mention it to her:

  The Army already knew that Maj Rydbom's writing style was well received back home, that his previous monthly letters were already getting publicized on a small scale. So they encouraged him to send a version that more succinctly included all of the important arguments that they were already trying to get across to reporters in Iraq. (One of the forums discussing this letter links to a FOX News interview with a General that hits all the same points the Major made, but from the viewpoint of the General.) I don't see how the Army would have any trouble helping Major Rydbom get this special version of his letter distributed much more widely than his previous letters. This was the one they helped him edit specifically for wider distribution, after all (imo). I don't see how Major Rydbom would object because he obviously believes in the media briefing points anyway.

  Army divisions in Iraq may have even encouraged other Majors to send the letter in the ambiguous manner your friend utilized so that recipients would be more likely to distribute it more quickly. This way they could create a potentially large Internet news blitz, to help counteract the failings of US news media. This tactic may have given some of the senders the impression that they had the right to edit it even further which would explain the WOMD additions and a couple other changes on other versions that Maj Rydbom and his wife specifically deny.

  Gamaliel
• 

  Jayson

  That's a question, isn't it. On the one hand he or someone else edited the letter, and it wasn't sent as a "forwarded" item. On the other hand, he didn't sign it, and it was sent to some number of email addresses. I don't know what his intention was. -Yeru

  Yeru, I am pretty disgusted with people demanding that you condem your friend. You do what every you feel is appropriate. You know him and his character not me. He may have innocently passed on a letter. And, a positive letter about Iraq at that. (THE HORROR) These people that look for and continue to point out ever flaw with Iraq & Bush while willfully ignoring any postive what so ever of the actions thus far probably help the cause more than hurt it. They may not see their bias but others do. They still think their BBC & such is above reproach and that ain't so. (Well, maybe for them it is) Time will tell.

  THE CONTINUING STORM Iraq, Poisonous Weapons, and Deterrence Avigdor Haselkorn 1999 400 pp. 13 illus., 6 1/8 x 9 1/4 Cloth ISBN 0-300-07582-0 $30.00 “Haselkorn is the first to take a serious academic look at the role of weapons of mass destruction in the Gulf War. It is an important breakthrough, and it will be a major contribution to a complete reassessment of the war.”--Paul Bracken, author of The Command and Control of Nuclear Forces In this thought-provoking book strategic analyst Avigdor Haselkorn provides an important reassessment of the 1991 Gulf War. Haselkorn’s step-by-step narrative--in which he reviews the events of the war with Iraq, examines intelligence and planning during the war, discusses why President Bush abruptly terminated it, and analyzes the strategic consequences--is absorbing and frightening. He reveals that the war was not the splendid high-tech victory that many Americans perceive, but a nearly catastrophic event. The threatened use of weapons of mass destruction during the Gulf War has redefined the meaning of deterrence, Haselkorn contends, and has set in motion trends that portend great danger to world peace. This book focuses on the role played by biological and chemical weapons in the Gulf War and scrutinizes the dynamics of deterrence. It supplies the grim facts about anthrax, botulinum toxin, and poison gases and traces the terror of their use. Haselkorn shows that President Bush had little choice about ending the war when he did, given the failure of U. S. intelligence and severe flaws in strategic planning. Indeed, leaders on both sides of the conflict were either dangerously uninformed or did not fully understand the information they had. This book provides a key to understanding the continuing stalemate with Iraq, and it offers new insights into how the spread of weapons of mass destruction will affect world politics and future battlefields. Avigdor Haselkorn is director of Geopolitical Forum, Lookout Point Online Database. He has advised many governments and businesses on foreign and strategic issues. “Intellectually gussied up as ‘deterrence,” guessing how to out-terrify one’s enemy without actually resorting to anthrax, nerve gas, or nuclear bombs was a critical subtext in the Gulf War. Haselkorn describes this vital but arcane interaction of threat and belief in detail. . . . The author’s theory that Saddam Hussein’s posture of ‘terroristic deterrence’ indeed deterred Bush from marching on Bagdad challenges most views and should prolong the debate about the ragged conclusion to that war.”--Gilbert Taylor, Booklist “It is hard to disagree with Haselkorn’s conclusion that in the future small extremist countries--North Korea, Libya, Iraq, and Iran--can use the threat of chemical/biological terrorism against the superpowers. A provocative and disturbing book.”--Library Journal

  Has anyone read this book? I am considering buying it.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Gam,

  Stranger things have happened.
• 

  dubla

  t h-

  Actually the troops that were sent over are a security force, not peace-keepers, and no decision has been made about us sending troops there, for peacekeeping purpouses.

  the decision (that we already knew was coming), has officially been made now.

  Bush Orders U.S. Troops to Liberia Coast

  http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=515&e=2&u=/ap/20030725/ap_on_re_af/us_liberia

  and as i said before, these troops are NOT going over there simply to protect the embassy.

  aa