0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:43 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
What do you call the over 30,000 innocent Iraqis killed by our forces?

In the three years, two months from 1/1/2003 until 2/28/2006, approximately 37,000 Iraqi civilians were killed. Approximately 8,000 were killed by Coalition forces. The rest, approximately 29,000, were killed by Terrorist Malignancy.

Either their alternates or many of those approximately 8,000 Iraq civilians killed by Coalition forces, would have probably been killed by Saddam's regime if we had not invaded Iraq. In the last three years of Saddam's regime, over 62,000 Iraq citizens were killed.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 09:10 pm
ican, You are an arse of the first class.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 09:26 pm
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
What do you call the over 30,000 innocent Iraqis killed by our forces?

In the three years, two months from 1/1/2003 until 2/28/2006, approximately 37,000 Iraqi civilians were killed. Approximately 8,000 were killed by Coalition forces. The rest, approximately 29,000, were killed by Terrorist Malignancy.

Either their alternates or many of those approximately 8,000 Iraq civilians killed by Coalition forces, would have probably been killed by Saddam's regime if we had not invaded Iraq. In the last three years of Saddam's regime, over 62,000 Iraq citizens were killed.


Without quibbling over your numbers, the point is that they're still being killed and the quality of life has gotten worse instead of better after the invasion. Iraq has more AQ than they did before the invasion and the Arab/Muslim sentiment towards the US in that part of the world is low to say the least so we are not safer in terms of having friendly middle east allies for having gone into Iraq.

You say that we could get rid of this insurgency problem if Bush started treating them as a cancer and just gets rid of them, don't you think they have been trying to do just that? What else can they do short of setting a nuclear bomb off over the whole area? We can be there for another 10 years and be no closer to any of our stated goals than we are now. Say whatever you want but the "enemy" seems to have the patience and the man power to last indefinitely.

As for what the answer is now, who in the world could know.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 12:35 am
Quote:
The War Dividend: The British companies making a fortune out of conflict-riven Iraq

By Robert Verkaik
Published: 13 March 2006

British businesses have profited by at least £1.1bn since coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein three years ago, the first comprehensive investigation into UK corporate investment in Iraq has found.

The company roll-call of post-war profiteers includes some of the best known names in Britain's boardrooms as well many who would prefer to remain anonymous. They come from private security services, banks, PR consultancies, urban planning consortiums, oil companies, architects offices and energy advisory bodies.

Among the top earners is the construction firm Amec, which has made an estimated £500m from a series of contracts restoring electrical systems and maintaining power generation facilities during the past two years. Aegis, which provides private security has earned more than £246m from a three-year contract with the Pentagon to co-ordinate military and security companies in Iraq. Erinys, which specialises in the same area, has made more than £86m, a substantial portion from the protection of oilfields.

The evidence of massive investments and the promise of more multimillion-pound profits to come was discovered in a joint investigation by Corporate Watch, an independent watchdog, and The Independent.

The findings show how much is stake if Britain were to withdraw military protection from Iraq. British company involvement at the top of Iraq's new political and economic structures means Iraq will be forced to rely on British business for many years to come.

A total of 61 British companies are identified as benefiting from at least £1.1bn of contracts and investment in the new Iraq. But that figure is just the tip of the iceberg; Corporate Watch believes it could be as much as five times higher, because many companies prefer to keep their relationship secret.

The waters are further muddied by the Government's refusal to release the names of companies it has helped to win contracts in Iraq.

Many of the companies enjoy long-standing relationships with Labour and now have a financial stake in the reconstruction of Iraq in Britain's image. Of the total profits published in the report, the British taxpayer has had to meet a bill for £78m while the US taxpayer's contribution to UK corporate earnings in Iraq is nearly nine times that. Iraqis themselves have paid British company directors £150m.

The report acknowledges that British business still lags behind the huge profits paid to American companies. But, in two fields, Britain is playing a critical and leading role.

The threat from the Iraqi insurgency means British private security companies are in great demand. Corporate Watch estimates there are between 20,000 and 30,000 security personnel working in Iraq, half of whom are employed by companies run by retired senior British officers and at least two former defence ministers.
The biggest British player, Aegis - run by Tim Spicer, the former British army lieutenant colonel who founded the security company Sandline - has a workforce the size of a military division and may rank as the largest corporate military group ever assembled, according to the report. Other private security companies have sprung up overnight to protect British and American civilians.

Britain is also playing a leading role in advising on the creation of state institutions and the business of government. PA Consulting, which has also received a contract for advising on the Government's ID cards scheme, worth around £19m, is now a key adviser in Iraq.

Adam Smith International, a body closely linked to the right-wing think-tank used by Margaret Thatcher, has been heavily involved in the foundation of the Iraqi government and continues to influence its newly formed ministries. According to the Tory MP Quentin Davies, who visited Iraq, the advisers are "reordering Iraqi government operations at the most basic level, to help restructure some of the Iraqi ministries, in fact physically restructure them, even suggesting how the minister's office should be laid out".

Another favourite of the Thatcher governments, now involved in Iraq, is Tim Bell, who ran the Tories' election campaigns in 1979, 1983 and 1987. His PR firm Bell-Pottinger has been involved in advising on the 2004 elections and a strategic campaign to promote bigger concepts such as the return of sovereignty, reconstruction, support for the army and police, minority rights and public probity.

Loukas Christodoulou, of Corporate Watch, has been monitoring British business relations with Iraq since the invasion. He says in his conclusion to our joint report: "The presence of these consultants in Iraq is arguably a part of the UK government's policy to push British firms as lead providers of privatisation support. The Department for International Development has positioned itself as a champion of privatisation in developing countries. The central part UK firms are playing in reshaping Iraq's economy and society lays the ground for a shift towards a corporate-dominated economy. This will have repercussions lasting decades."

In five years, the £1.1bn of contracts identified in the report will be dwarfed by what Britain and the US hope to reap from investments. Highly lucrative oil contracts have yet to be handed out.
Source
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 03:40 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/13/international/middleeast/13command.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

In the NYT today, a report of how Rumsfeld and his high command let their arrogance and ambition get in the way of proper planning.

With results still being felt today, and how.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 07:04 am
Our American public is in for another round of speeches from the administration "explaining" Iraq to the masses who if only they were not fooled by the bad press would know that Iraq is really doing very well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031001949_pf.html

Think Progrees has outlined how this has been recycled again and again since the troubles in Iraq began after the "mission (was) accomplished."

Quote:


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/11/iraq-offensive/
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 10:42 am
icant probably doesn't still know that most of the military in Iraq wants to get out sooner than later. icant should volunteer his own arse to fight the "malignancy" in Iraq.

According to a poll conducted in January-February by Zogby International, in conjunction with Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global Studies:

* 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year
* 29% say the U.S. should leave Iraq "immediately"
* 23% say they should stay "as long as they are needed"
* 37% think those Americans who favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal are unpatriotic
* 58% say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds
* 85% believe the U.S. mission is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks"
* 77% believe a major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq"


The survey polled 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

icant is a loser of the first order. His continued baying of "malignancy" seems to have fallen off the cliff while the majority wants to come home from Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 11:44 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, You are an arse of the first class.

Thank you for your capitulation however ungraciously stated!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 11:49 am
Me capitulate to the likes of you? Get real, but then I repeat myself.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 12:42 pm
revel wrote:

...
Without quibbling over your numbers, the point is that they're still being killed and the quality of life has gotten worse instead of better after the invasion.
I didn't have time to check the numbers last night. IBC claims that from 1/1/2003 to 2/28/2006 the total number of Iraq civilians killed is "37,589." According to my calculations from the IBC data, Coalition forces killed about 7,883. So the total number murdered by Terrorist Malignancy = 37,589 - 7,883 = 29,706.

Saddam's regime in its last 38 months murdered 68,373 Iraq civilians.


Iraq has more AQ than they did before the invasion
Yes, that is true. Most of them are from the "10,000 to 20,000" who graduated 1996 to 2001, before our invasion of Afghanistan, from the AQ Academy in Afghanistan.

and the Arab/Muslim sentiment towards the US in that part of the world is low to say the least so we are not safer in terms of having friendly middle east allies for having gone into Iraq.
I agree! But unfriendly arabs are a far less threat to the lives of American civilians than is Terrorist Malignancy. I bet many of those unfriendly arabs are unfriendly because we have lately been so ineffective in exterminating Terrorist Mallignancy.

You say that we could get rid of this insurgency problem if Bush started treating them as a cancer and just gets rid of them, don't you think they have been trying to do just that?
NO! The Bush regime has been taking many of these Terrorist Malignancy humanoids prisoners instead of openly killing them on site, on sight.

What else can they do short of setting a nuclear bomb off over the whole area? We can be there for another 10 years and be no closer to any of our stated goals than we are now. Say whatever you want but the "enemy" seems to have the patience and the man power to last indefinitely.
Terrorist Malignancy humanoids must not be taken or held prisoner like conventional uniformed troops, who do not murder civilians and who do not cut off the heads of their prisoners. Instead we should instead openly kill these Terrorist Malignancy humanoids on site, on sight (including those in process of crossing the Syrian and Iranian borders into Iraq).

As for what the answer is now, who in the world could know.
I do! In addition to what I just wrote, the President must give the newly elected Iraqi government a deadline for getting organized. If they fail to meet that deadline we should pull out of Iraq ASAP.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 12:44 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Me capitulate to the likes of you? Get real, but then I repeat myself.

Yes you did repeat yourself. My goodness! Two capitulations (e.g., ad hominems) in a row. One was sufficient.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 01:32 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:

...

* 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year
I think this percentage is healthy. I think it means that a large majority of our troops want to come home in 2006. If I were one of them, I'd want to come home in 2006 too!

* 29% say the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately”
71% do not think the US should leave Iraq immediately. Excellent!

* 23% say they should stay “as long as they are needed”
* 37% think those Americans who favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal are unpatriotic
60% are opposed to rapid withdrawal. Excellent!

* 58% say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds
Good!

* 85% believe the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks”
* 77% believe a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq”

These two numbers appear to be in conflict.
85% say mainly "to retaliate ... "
77% say major[ly] "to stop ... "
What's the difference between mainly and major[ly]?

Well, regardless, I agree with the 77% who do think "to stop ... " is a major reason, and disagree with the 23% who do not think "to stop ... " is a major reason.

I am very encouraged by these survey results.

...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 01:51 pm
LISTEN UP ALL YOU WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO BE WARDS OF THE LIEBRALS!

LIEbrals are particularly pernicious liars. They are bigots. They accuse all Americans of the bad behavior of a few Americans. They accuse all American military of the bad behavior of a few of the American military. They accuse all American prisoner interrogators of the bad behavior of a few American prisoner interrogators.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 01:59 pm
* 29% say the U.S. should leave Iraq "immediately"
71% do not think the US should leave Iraq immediately. Excellent!

Not quite 71 percent, icant. There are always those that are in the "I do not know" group.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 02:12 pm
LISTEN UP ALL YOU WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO BE WARDS OF THE LIEBRALS!

LIEbrals lie about America's enemies. They claim Terrorist Malignancy will subside if America's troops withdraw from Iraq. They know this claim is false. They know Terrorist Malignancy has been spreading and mass murdering civilians before America's troops invaded either Afghanistan or Iraq. They know Terrorist Malignancy declared war against Americans and killed thousands of Americans before America's troops invaded either Afghanistan or Iraq. They know that if Terrorist Malignancy were to stop murdering civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's troops would leave Afghanistan and Iraq ASAP. They know Terrorist Malignancy killed more than 29,000 Iraq civilians and the Coalition killed less than 8,000, but allege that the Coalition is responsible for all of Iraqi civilian deaths.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 02:17 pm
Poll just out ... 15% of Americans think U.S. can succeed.

Anon
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 02:20 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
* 29% say the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately”
71% do not think the US should leave Iraq immediately. Excellent!

Not quite 71 percent, icant. There are always those that are in the "I do not know" group.

The I don't know percentage was not included in the numbers you posted. I bet that's due to the fact that number is less than 1%, because of who was polled. A military person rarely takes that position on any military question.

But OK! 70% do not think the US should leave Iraq immediately. Excellent!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 02:24 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
Poll just out ... 15% of Americans think U.S. can succeed. Anon

Laughing Were more people than those who walk with you on your beach polled?
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 02:26 pm
Nope, Just heard it on TV.

Anon
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 02:33 pm
Bush and icant should be impeached - immediately:


Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2005-10-11 16:46. Media
For Immediate Release: October 11, 2005

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 04:55:21