THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Today's progress: 175 Iraqis killed, and 200 injured. Five soldiers killed. Over thirty percent of Iraqi children are starving. Most are living with less than two hours of electricity. If that's progress, I want no part of it.

Regardless, we must find a way to make progress in Iraq. The consequences of failure to eventually make progress in Iraq would be intolerable.

In my opinion, the reason Bush's approval rating is going up, is because by contrast the Democrats are being increasingly perceived as far more incompetent than is Bush and his administration.

ican hasn't been paying any attention to the "progress" we've been blessed with in Iraq for the past five years. Some people's ability to see the glass half full when people are dying all around them and children starving must be a trick of mind-boggling ability.

It is mind-boggling for me to believe that you truly do not understand my point.

I'll make believe that I believe you truly do not understand my point.

I do not see the glass half full when people are dying all around me and children starving. I doubt that most Americans see the glass half full when people are dying all around them and children starving.

What we see in that glass is the danger of far more people dying all around us and far more children starving, if we fail to eventually make progress in Iraq.

We do not advocate persisting in Iraq because we think we are making progress there. To us, that is not relevant to the necessity for us to persist in Iraq regardless of our current progress or lack of progress in the last 4 years, 5 months.

You appear to think failure to achieve our goal quickly enough is justification for abandoning our goal. That's loser's mentality. We advocate persisting to achieve our goal regardless of past failures, because we know that if we were to abandon our goal in Iraq, the price paid by the Iraqi people as well as all the rest of us would be horrific.

If you do not want to discuss/debate the probable consequences of quitting in Iraq, ok do not. But your repeated malarkey about what you allege is our unfounded optimism is nothing less than your continuing failure to deal with the real issue.

Optimistic or pessimistic, we know we must persevere without a current legitimate cause for optimism. Failure in this "state enterprise", is not only intolerable, it is unconscionable.

"to persevere: to persist in a state enterprise, or undertaking in spite of counter influences, opposition, or discouragement."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

That Petraeus and his warlords are able to see past these killed and maimed tells us more about them than needs be said, but especially the starving children who they continue to ignore. What kind of people are these?
...

Petraeus and all the people under his command are brave and noble people risking their lives to reduce the rate and magnitude of our enemy's atrocities as well as the consequences of those atrocities.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
That Petraeus and his warlords are able to see past these killed and maimed tells us more about them than needs be said, but especially the starving children who they continue to ignore. What kind of people are these?
...

Petraeus and all the people under his command are brave and noble people risking their lives to reduce the rate and magnitude of our enemy's atrocities as well as the consequences of those atrocities.

Exactly, Ican, so please keep informed on latest statements by Gen. Petraeus, Amb. Crocker, and other officials:

Quote:

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

The senior administration official said the process had created "uncomfortable positions" for the White House because of debates over what constitutes "satisfactory progress."

.................................

"There were some in the drafting of the report that said, 'Well, we can claim progress,' " the administration official said. "There were others who said: 'Wait a second. Sure we can claim progress, but it's not credible to . . . just neglect the fact that it's had no effect on the ground.' "

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story?page=2&coll=la-home-center

0 Replies

They have now trotted out Casey to grease the skids for Patraeus' report by saying the troops can keep going until spring without a change to the deployment policy. It's already leaked out that Patraeus will give an expected lackluster report and will recommend a longer surge.

0 Replies

That attack which killed so many the other day? The number of deceased is thought to be over 500, making it the deadliest attack of its' type in Iraq to date.

Quote:

Iraqi officials: Truck bombings killed at least 500

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The death toll in the suicide bombings Tuesday in northern Iraq has risen to at least 500, local officials in Nineveh province said Wednesday.

Iraqi Army and Mosul police sources earlier put the number at 260, but said it was likely to rise. 320 were reported wounded.

The Tuesday truck bombs that targeted the villages of Qahtaniya, al-Jazeera and Tal Uzair, in northern Iraq near the border with Syria, were a "trademark al Qaeda event" designed to sway U.S. public opinion against the war, a U.S. general said Wednesday.

The attacks, targeting Kurdish villages of the Yazidi religious minority, were attempts to "break the will" of the American people and show that the U.S. troop escalation -- the "surge" -- is failing, Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon said.

The bombings highlight the kind of sectarian tensions the troop surge was designed to stop.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is predominantly Sunni, and Mixon said members of the Yazidi religious minority have received threatening letters, called "night letters," telling them "to leave because they are infidels."

"This is an act of ethnic cleansing, if you will -- almost genocide when you consider the fact the target they attacked and the fact that these Yazidis, out in a very remote part of Nineveh province, where there is very little security and really no security required to this point," Mixon said. VideoWatch general explain why al Qaeda targets Yazidis »

Sunni militants, including members of al Qaeda in Iraq, have targeted Yazidis in the area before.

Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf, an Interior Ministry spokesman, said there were three suicide trucks carrying two tons of explosives. At least 30 houses and other buildings were destroyed.

Khalaf said the carnage looks like the aftermath of a "mini-nuclear explosion." More bodies are expected to be found. See a timeline of deadliest attacks in Iraq »

The U.S. military said there were five bombings -- four at a crowded bus station in Qahtaniya and a fifth in al-Jazeera.

The massacre comes ahead of next month's report to Congress by Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker on progress in Iraq.

"We still have a great deal of work to do against al Qaeda in Iraq, and we have great deal of work to do against al Qaeda networks in northern Iraq," Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a Multi-National Force-Iraq spokesman, said Wednesday.

The office of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki blamed Sunni extremists for the "monstrous crime." He said a committee has been formed to investigate.

Ashraf Qazi, the U.N. secretary-general's special representative for Iraq, called the attack an "abominable crime aimed at widening the sectarian and ethnic divide in Iraq."

Qazi urged Iraqi authorities to bolster their efforts to protect minorities.

The Yazidi sect is a mainly Kurdish minority, an ancient group that worships seven angels, in the form of peacocks, who are subordinate to the supreme god who created the universe. Find out more about the sect »

A couple of related incidents in the spring highlighted the tensions between Sunnis and Yazidis.

In April, a Kurdish Yazidi teenage girl was brutally beaten, kicked and stoned to death in northern Iraq by other Yazidis in what authorities said was an "honor killing" after she was seen with a Sunni Muslim man. Although she had not married him or converted, her attackers believed she had.

The Yazidis condemn mixing with people of another faith.

That killing is said to have spurred the killings of about two dozen Yazidi men by Sunni Muslims in the Mosul area two weeks later.

Attackers affiliated with al Qaeda pulled 24 Yazidi men out of a bus and slaughtered them, according to a provincial official.

Okay, so, why should anyone - at any time - believe what any General has to say on this issue? It has long been clear that they, if not outright lie, put a spin on things which bears little relation to reality. They do this because it is their job to keep morale high, and also because they have been ordered to do so by the President - any General who has spoken out against his policies has found himself removed.

Remember that Petraeus isn't giving a report. There is no 'Petraeus report' coming this September. The WH is going to author a report, and it's going to say 'we're making progress, but we have to stay longer.' Foolishness to think anything different will happen.

Ican, when you see that a goal is either unaccomplishable, or the cost of accomplishing that goal would take far more sacrifice then the goal would bring you returns, the intelligent thing to do is change your goals. And yes, it will mean a setback for America. This does happen to everyone from time to time. The problem is, there will always be those like you who just won't admit it.

I don't buy in to your fearmongering about the dangers of leaving Iraq. I think that there will be regional war if we leave; this is not a good enough reason for us to stay in perpetuity. Many top Generals have said we must have a decade-long commitment, or more, and it simply isn't worth the time and lives it would take to stay there.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And even if we stay a decade or more, it doesn't guarantee any improvement for the Iraqis. Isn't that the bottom line? Why must "we" sacrifice our soldiers and treasure for a goal that's not even articulated? If not success in ten years, what makes this administration and their supporters think any "progress" will be made in fifty?

0 Replies

The only "success" Bush has had is the length of this war; longer than WWII.

0 Replies

when i contrast what's going on in iraq to what i experienced at and after the end of WW II , i can only feel very sorry for the iraqis - and shake my head in disbelief !

i was a schoolboy/teenager and our whole hamburg school had been re-located to what is now the czech republic during 1944 .
on may 6 , 1945 - two days of germany's surrender - we left the czech republic and entered the american occupied zone of germany(bavaria) .

so within days after the end of the war we were in the american occupied zone (from may to july) .
we stayed in a barn for a few days(we were safe , warm , had food and were free to roam around during the daytime) .
the americans quickly disarmed the german army and collected all weapons - including those kept by civilians .
a curfew was instituted and all borders were were secured immediately .
while food was a bit scarce , one didn't have to fear of being shot at by a german renegade or any american .
american soldiers and MP were installed in the smallest village .
within a short time the american military government brought back unarmed german police - often patrolling with the americans - and local civilian authorities were put in place .
after about ten days an american army chaplain showed up with a convey of GI's in jeeps and we were driven to individual farms in the area .
the farmers were asked to house and feed us for the time being and we were told to help the farmers as best as we could .

in july we were all picked up again , several busses had been chartered and we were off - back to hamburg !
hamburg - in the british occupation zone - had been heavily bombed during the war and housing was scarce . luckily my parents home was in good shape and i settled down quickly after having been away from home for a year (actually for the second time - i spent 1942 with a family in vienna) .
while there was no doubt that the british were in charge , life was really fairly normal . in the fall of 1945 schools reopened and we hit the books again .
while the curfew had been lifted , british soldiers were in evidence wherever one went , but there was no fear of them (as a matter of fact , i became friends with a young british soldier who visited with us regularly).

while the years from 1945 to 1948 were a little tough - food and coal was rationed - , in 1948 a german government was back in charge and a currency reform enabled germany to become economically stable again .

i'm asking myself on occasion what has gone wrong in iraq ?
even though WW II brought devastion to many countries and people ,
the allies of WW II were able to help the defeated nations to get back on their feet rather quickly - for which i'm personally VERY grateful !

yet in the relatively small theater of war in iraq , just about everything seems to go wrong continuously .
both civilians and soldiers still get killed every day - sometimes in large numbers ; the infrastructure seems to be in worth shape now than two years ago - the outlook sure is not good imo .

the americans and their allies have little control over the borders , they cannot guarantee the safety of the civilians ; i could go on and on - i don't see ANY hopeful signs !
hbg(still shaking his head)

0 Replies

Thank you, hamburger, for that story. I'll leave it at that for the moment. I am sure there are some nits that can be picked at.

0 Replies

hbg, Thank you for sharing your first hand experience in Germany as a youth. We rarely hear the "true" story about how people survived during and after the war. I'm sure that your parents saw things somewhat differently than you did, the same as I saw our internment in concentration camps in the US differently than our parents and other adults impacted by the war.

0 Replies

Another casualty of this war not reported or kept quiet. After all, we see so much progress in Iraq.

Army suicides highest in 26 years

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
16 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Army soldiers committed suicide last year at the highest rate in 26 years, and more than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new military report.

The report, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its scheduled release Thursday, found there were 99 confirmed suicides among active duty soldiers during 2006, up from 88 the previous year and the highest since the 102 suicides in 1991.

"Iraq was the most common deployment location for both (suicides) and attempts," the report said.

The 99 suicides included 28 soldiers deployed to the two wars and 71 who weren't. About twice as many women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan committed suicide as did women not sent to war, the report said.

Preliminary numbers for the first half of this year indicate the number of suicides could decline across the service in 2007 but increase among troops serving in the wars, officials said.

The increases for 2006 came as Army officials worked to set up a number of new and stronger programs for providing mental health care to a force strained by the longer-than-expected war in Iraq and the global counterterrorism war entering its sixth year.

0 Replies

c.i. :
a few things i can say with certainty :
my parents were truly glad when the war was over .
they had both lived through WW I - my mother working in a munitions factory , my dad having been called up when he was 18 in 1916 . he experienced some of the worst battles of that "great and last war" .
they sure did not want another war !
they were both glad when my brother - who was called up when he was 18 in 1941 - and i returned after the war . i returned in the summer of '45 , my brother a year later after having been an american POW .

we both came to canada mainly because my brother liked americans . even though he had been a POW ; that didn't turn him off - it turned him on for america and american life .
since it was rather more difficult to get into the U.S. , we at least got rather close to it : canada !

my parents were able to visit with us after we had been in canada for ten years . i still remember my dad saying : "why didn't we go after WW I ? life would have been so much easier . we sure are glad you made the move ! " .

even though we had gone through some fairly heavy allied bombing raids in ham,burg , once the war was over , there really was no resentment of the british or the americans - certainly not in our family .
perhaps i'm climbing out on the limb a little far , but most of the people i knew really looked upon the british and americans as having brought freedom to germany (of course , people in eastern germany were not as lucky with the soviets !) .

(a little anecdote : when we saw the first american soldiers rolling into the small village were our chool was situated towards the end of april 1945 , we had already perfected our english well enough to ask : "mister , you got chewing gum ? " - they had plenty and willingly shared !)
hbg("you got chewing gum , mister ?")

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Ican, when you see that a goal is either unaccomplishable, or the cost of accomplishing that goal would take far more sacrifice then the goal would bring you returns, the intelligent thing to do is change your goals.

If the goal is unaccomplishable or is too costly to warrant its accomplishment, then yes the goal should be abandoned. But the cost and sacrifice required to achieve the goal of destroying al-Qaeda is less than the cost and sacrifice of failing to achieve that goal. The al-
Qaeda Confederation's goal is well documented by al-Qaeda. What al-Qaeda will subsequently accomplish by chasing us out of Iraq is horrific and intolerable.

And yes, it will mean a setback for America. This does happen to everyone from time to time. The problem is, there will always be those like you who just won't admit it.

There you go again pretending to know what I thiink and what I will admit. Next time try asking me instead.

If I knew the actual price of failure were only a mere setback, then I would have joined with you in demanding we stay out of Iraq, or at least leave immediately after we replaced Saddam with an elected government of Iraq.

I don't buy in to your fearmongering about the dangers of leaving Iraq. I think that there will be regional war if we leave; this is not a good enough reason for us to stay in perpetuity. Many top Generals have said we must have a decade-long commitment, or more, and it simply isn't worth the time and lives it would take to stay there.

I know you don't buy into my fears about the dangers of leaving Iraq, before we succeed. I've repeatedly presented you evidence that justifies my fears. You have so far provided no evidence to justify your assessment of the cost and sacrifice of leaving before we succeed.

Cycloptichorn

Al-Qaeda has repeatedly declared their plans for achieving a worldwide caliphate. Based on their behavior to date, I see no evidence that they do not mean what they say they intend to achieve. The fact that they are fighting so hard to re-establish a sanctuary in Iraq, convinces me that they are convinced that they must chase us out of Iraq for them to achieve their goals.

What evidences leads you to think otherwise?

0 Replies

hbg, Certainly a memoir to treasure and to share with your children - and with us on A2K. Thank you; sometimes we do some things right!

I remember reading some stories about the Japanese in Japan during and after the war. They thought the Americans would torture and rape them after they surrendered, but instead were treated with respect and kindness - similar to your experience in Germany.

Many committed suicide not knowing the truth.

Even when things look hopeless, survival is still the best choice - under certain cirumstances.

0 Replies

Quote:

Al-Qaeda has repeatedly declared their plans for achieving a worldwide caliphate. Based on their behavior to date, I see no evidence that they do not mean what they say they intend to achieve. The fact that they are fighting so hard to re-establish a sanctuary in Iraq, convinces me that they are convinced that they must chase us out of Iraq for them to achieve their goals.

What evidences leads you to think otherwise?

I haven't seen any evidence that AQ has the ability to run anything. How would they establish such a world-wide caliphate? You might as well be as afraid of aliens taking over the world; it's about as likely.

I tell you again: the US is in no serious danger from AQ or any other terrorist organization. They have no ability to force us to do anything that we don't decide to do ourselves, at all. They never have, and never will.

You just don't understand the nature of terrorism, and perceive them in the same way as you would a traditional opposing military force. They are not traditional in any way, they lack the capabilities of a traditional force in every way. To fear the 'worldwide caliphate' is ridiculous. If we pull out of Iraq, it will bring AQ no closer to achieving that goal - which, by the way, is not their actual goal, and you're a moron if you think it is. AQ stating that they want a 'worldwide caliphate' is akin to the US calling for Democracies in every country. A dream mixed with a PR push.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Both goals are based on stupidity and ignorance. It seams AQ already won the heart and soul of ican. Bush was successful to that extent.

0 Replies

Hamburger and Circerone:
Thank you, Hamburger, for the snippets of stories of your childhood. A childhood interrupted by war.
I don't know you here on A2K that well.
I know Cicerone a bit better. In fact I have met Tak. I know something about his interrupted childhood.

I am wondering whether each of you (and anyone else who experienced WW2) could write more about it. This thread, about Iraq, may not be the appropriate place. So start a new one. I think we would love to have some descriptions of that time. Thank you.

0 Replies

hi , john :
thanks for your comments !
i should perhaps run a survey to find out if there is any interest in "old chestnuts" .
the reason i posted in this thread was to show the contrast between what happened after WW II and "after the end of the war in iraq" - which seems to go on forever .
i don''t know that i can properly express my feelings of compassion and sorrow for both the citizens of iraq and the american soldiers fighting in iraq .
war is horrible , but even more so if there is little hope of an end to hostilities and being able to look forward to a more normal life again .
i suppose the war in iraq might be compared to the "30 year war" that ravaged europe from 1618 to 1648 - when it was said "that the rivers flowed red from blood" (not a nice thought that early in the morning) .
hbg

0 Replies

rjb, I think that's a grand idea; you can start a new thread and provide a link on this thread for those interested. I'm sure there are people "out there" who has personal stories they would love to share.

0 Replies

McClatchy Report Questions Claims of Progress in Baghdad
McClatchy Report Questions Claims of Progress in Baghdad
By E&P Staff
Published: August 15, 2007

A report today by McClatchy's Baghdad bureau chief, Laila Fadel, questions numbers and claims put forward by the U.S. military to suggest that the "surge" may be working.

While U.S. officials claim the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent, they declined to provide specific numbers. "Statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim," Fadel notes.

Her articles opens: "Despite U.S. claims that violence is down in the Iraqi capital, U.S. military officers are offering a bleak picture of Iraq's future, saying they've yet to see any signs of reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite Muslims despite the drop in violence.

"Without reconciliation, the military officers say, any decline in violence will be temporary and bloodshed could return to previous levels as soon as the U.S. military cuts back its campaign against insurgent attacks.

"That downbeat assessment comes despite a buildup of U.S. troops that began five months ago Wednesday and has seen U.S. casualties reach the highest sustained levels since the United States invaded Iraq nearly four and a half years ago.

"Violence remains endemic, with truck bombs on Tuesday claiming as many as 175 lives in northern Iraq and destroying a key bridge near Baghdad, the first successful bridge attack since June.

"And while top U.S. officials insist that 50 percent of the capital is now under effective U.S. or government control, compared with 8 percent in February, statistics indicate that the improvement in violence is at best mixed.

"The number of car bombings in July actually was 5 percent higher than the number recorded last December, according to the McClatchy statistics, and the number of civilians killed in explosions is about the same."

The lengthy article is available at:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/18927.html

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know