9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 10:18 am
You are a joker; during the last two years of Saddam's control, the trend was decreasing while the US trend is increasing. Bush loves to talk about "trends" and accomplishments, or haven't you noticed yet? LOL
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 10:21 am
Here, let me spell it out for you. In 2002 under Saddam, the average monthly death rate was 1,252, and in 2001 it was 1,606.

Under Bush for the past 12 months, the average is 2,574.


You do understand math don't you?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 12:18 pm
Afghanistan is where bin Laden and the Taliban had their operations that attacked the twin towers, and Bush had to start his illegal war in Iraq, and diverted our efforts to fight two wars with incompetence and mismanagement. After five years, we have the following problem (still fighting a war that should have been over quickly).


Scores of Afghan insurgents killed

By RAHIM FAIEZ, Associated Press Writer
28 minutes ago



KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghan troops backed by foreign soldiers and airpower killed about 70 suspected Taliban fighters in raids close to the Pakistan border and throughout in the country, authorities said Saturday.

Insurgent violence in Afghanistan is running at its highest level since the 2001 ouster of the Taliban despite the presence of more than 50,000 foreign troops and 110,000 Afghan police and military officers.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 12:42 pm
british reporter , richard gilpin , returns to iraq after a two year absence to see what progress has been made .
seems there hasn't been much progress - if any IMO .
but you can judge for yourthelves .
hbg


Quote:
Life in claustrophobic Baghdad 'jail'

The top US military commander in Iraq is soon to report to President George W Bush on progress in containing violence in Iraq. He will use a series of benchmarks to measure success or the lack of it. Richard Galpin has returned to Baghdad after two years to see what change there has been.

As my plane made the steep, tactical descent to Baghdad airport, I was thinking about those much debated American benchmarks and realised that, almost subconsciously, I had developed my own.

Mine are, of course, deeply unscientific and highly personal - if not slightly eccentric - but they help.

The first is the width of our street.

When I first came to Baghdad just after Americans troops had marched in four years ago, we lived and worked in a normal street.

We walked around freely - even at night - taking just basic security precautions.

But this did not last long.

The American military floundered, not knowing what to do after taking Baghdad because it did not have a serious plan for the day after declaring victory.

That let members of the former regime seize the initiative, launching a well planned campaign of guerrilla warfare which also attracted Islamic extremists.

So over the next two years, our lives in Baghdad became ever more restricted.


Quote:
A friend of mine is trying to persuade members of his own family to move abroad for safety - such is the fear of violence in this city



Our street was sealed off and guarded, and it became increasingly narrow as each building had huge concrete blast-barriers placed in front of it.

By the time I completed my last tour of duty in the autumn of 2005, it seemed that every possible step had been taken to protect us from attack. But not so.

On my return here two weeks ago, I discovered our street was even narrower because yet more blast-barriers had been brought in.

It is now also much shorter, cut in half by a huge metal gate. And everywhere there are security cameras.

Living here is deeply claustrophobic.

What had previously felt like a reasonably relaxed prison, has now been transformed into a maximum security jail whose inmates - in other words us - are rarely let out.


Quote:
The board we use in the office to list shootings, bombings and other violent incidents is now too small - we need something bigger



Even government ministries have now been added to the long list of forbidden territory.

Where once we could go to spend time speaking with top members of the Iraqi government, we now fear to tread because of the threat of being kidnapped.

And that is because at the end of May, a British consultant and his four British bodyguards were seized by gunmen from inside the finance ministry in Baghdad.

Their fate is still unknown.

The incident says so much about the current state of the Iraqi security forces.

The kidnappers were all wearing police uniforms and drove up in police vehicles - clear evidence of the involvement of militia groups within the police force or, at the very least, collusion between the two.

Despair and grief

My second benchmark is the face of an Iraqi friend here.

Over the past four years, I have seen his face evolve into a picture of dejection. But now there seems to be something even worse: despair.

He is trying to persuade members of his own family to move abroad for safety even if it means being apart for years. Such is the fear of both random and sectarian violence in this city.

But this is minor league compared to what our colleagues at an international news agency have been through.

A few days ago, I attended a wake for two of their Iraqi staff - a photographer and a driver - who were killed in Baghdad in July.

An American Apache helicopter opened fire on them. The US military says it was engaged in a fire-fight with insurgents at the time.

In total, the agency has now lost seven staff since the invasion.

The photographer was just 22 years old and an exhibition of some of his most powerful images had been put on display for us to see.

Most of his short professional life had been spent chronicling just one thing: the violence tearing apart his own country.

And that brings me to my third benchmark, the board in our office.

Every day it is used to compile a list of the shootings, bombings and other violent incidents we hear about around the country. Last week we decided the board was too small. We needed something bigger.


Recipe for war

My fourth and final benchmark is a more direct look at how the American troops now operate on the ground.




Quote:
Thousands of volunteers have been stepping forward and offering to protect their own neighbourhoods



It derives from a brief trip we made with General Raymond Odierno, the second most senior American military commander in Iraq.

A great bull of a man with a shaved head, he had some very specific people he wanted us to meet.

They are known as the volunteer security forces or civilian guards.


They have sprung up in the wake of the surge of American troops across central Iraq this year, which has had some success in quelling the violence in some of the most troubled regions.

Thousands of volunteers - all Sunni Arabs - have been stepping forward and offering to protect their own neighbourhoods. Some are former insurgents who have switched sides.

Others are young unemployed men who have had enough of the violence.

It is a remarkable turn-around that so many now want to co-operate with the Americans, the very people they had previously been trying to kill.

The Americans have been eager to sign them up and give them contracts - 20,000 apparently so far.

In the Sunni district of Baghdad we went to, the volunteers are filling a void because there are no regular police there as the police are mostly Shia.

While the Americans are enthusiastic about this growing force, the majority Shia population is becoming increasingly alarmed.

They fear that a Sunni militia of dubious loyalty to the government is being created across the Sunni heartlands.

And if the Americans hand responsibility to them and then pull back, it could be they have created the perfect recipe for all-out civil war.




From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Saturday, 1 September, 2007 at 1130 BST on BBC Radio 4. Please check the programme schedules for World Service transmission times.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6971226.stm

Published: 2007/09/01 11:02:18 GMT

© BBC MMVII



IRAQ BENCHMARKS - AN OUTSIDERS LOOK
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 01:22 pm
All the things Richard Gilpin reported is actually not new news. We saw the so-called "progress" being reported with all the hints that things got worse not only for the Iraqis but also for the coalition forces. The Sunni militia is also "old" story; and many have infiltrated into the Iraqi army.

Why all the generals continue their false reports about "progress" boggles my mind. It doesn't seem to matter that more Iraqis are getting killed and maimed. What is our troops supposed to be fighting in Iraq for? Less of our troops getting killed? The priorities are all screwed up, and they can't see the obvious!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 02:07 pm
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
You are a joker; during the last two years of Saddam's control, the trend was decreasing


One might expect that due to the horrific methods Saddam used to terrify the population. It is certainly not due to Saddam being a more humane person than Mr Bush. Obviously there will be some trouble in changing a regime. The two sets of circumstances are not comparable.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 03:06 pm
spendius wrote:
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
You are a joker; during the last two years of Saddam's control, the trend was decreasing


One might expect that due to the horrific methods Saddam used to terrify the population. It is certainly not due to Saddam being a more humane person than Mr Bush. Obviously there will be some trouble in changing a regime. The two sets of circumstances are not comparable.


Never claimed Saddam had a change of heart or anything close to it. He had total control over the citizens, and he knew it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 03:31 pm
All I'm saying is that the comparison of deaths is a red herring and so obviously so that it amazes me that anyone could assume an audience would be so thick as not to notice.

There were a lot of other deaths under Saddam than were counted in the figures given. He had to go. Like the French aristocracy. Shifting them caused a lot of deaths.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 03:49 pm
spendius wrote:
All I'm saying is that the comparison of deaths is a red herring and so obviously so that it amazes me that anyone could assume an audience would be so thick as not to notice.

There were a lot of other deaths under Saddam than were counted in the figures given. He had to go. Like the French aristocracy. Shifting them caused a lot of deaths.



We also do not know the true death rate of Iraqis under the US occupation. Additionally, the majority of Iraqis want us out of their country as does most Muslims. In other words, we are not welcomed occupiers of their land for whatever reasons Bush may justify.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 04:32 pm
Quote:
BAGHDAD -- Bombings, sectarian slayings and other violence related to the war killed at least 1,773 Iraqi civilians in August, the second month in a row that civilian deaths have risen, according to government figures obtained Friday.

In July, the civilian death toll was 1,753, and in June it was 1,227. The numbers are based on morgue, hospital and police records and come from officials in the ministries of Health, Defense and the Interior. The statistics appear to indicate that the increase in troops ordered by President Bush this year has done little to curb civilian bloodshed, despite U.S. military statements to the contrary.


source


Quote:
There were a lot of other deaths under Saddam than were counted in the figures given. He had to go. Like the French aristocracy. Shifting them caused a lot of deaths.


Unfortunately the world is full of bad men needing to go but we don't have resources nor the mandate to go after them all. Saddam was not any worse than many other evil dictators. Kim II comes readily to mind.

The thing is that Saddam 'going' the way he did made a bad situation worse. Saddam was contained at the time we invaded; there was no reason to rush off the way we did and willy nilly conduct an invasion which has wrecked thousands of lives and still continues to.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 04:36 pm
spendius wrote :

Quote:
One might expect that due to the horrific methods Saddam used to terrify the population. It is certainly not due to Saddam being a more humane person than Mr Bush. Obviously there will be some trouble in changing a regime. The two sets of circumstances are not comparable.


saddam is long gone - he is DEAD !
should one not expect the deathtoll to go down ? instead it's still going up !

as the british reporter wrote , it's the fighting between various rival groups that continues to go on and is getting worse . it seems to me that the sunni "poiceforces" - for want of a better description - are nothing more than death-squads in police uniforms .
hbg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 04:46 pm
Yup! That's how I see it too!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 05:24 pm
Which is beside the point.

He had to go. And his sons.

What are you proposing? That we asked him nicely?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 05:38 pm
spendius wrote:
Which is beside the point.

He had to go. And his sons.

What are you proposing? That we asked him nicely?


That's just it; he didn't "have to go."

Read this for other evil dictators who was as bad as Saddam was or worse. Yet I never hear anyone suggesting we have to go after them.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 06:14 pm
Oh- don't worry about that revel. We will.

We'll deal with them one at once starting with the worst and Saddam was the worst.

We need to get them on a level playing field which means a minimum wage of about $10 an hour.

It will take a while I know, and you won't see it happen, but with luck and fortitude it will be done.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 06:41 pm
Crown Prince Abdullah has to go too ?

but , but ... who is going to hold president bush's hand thereafter ?

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/L/c/bush_abdullah_chaching.jpg
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 06:54 pm
Yep- he's going too.

We are not phewking about.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 07:15 am
spendius wrote:
Yep- he's going too.

We are not phewking about.


You are full of it; spendius. Iraq was a major mess up from the misleading statements leading us into this quagmire to how we conducted this war all down the line. Heaven help us if we are going to turn the whole world into Iraq.

Get this: Saddam Hussein was contained at the time of the invasion; there worse threats and still are worse threats to go after at the time of invasion not the least of which was to keep our eye on the perpetrators of 9/11. We failed in that 'effort' as well.

As just another example why we don't need to re-do the crusades:

Second British general bashes US strategy in Iraq

We certainly are phewking about and all the dead bodies and total chaos is paying for it. How long do you think the rest of the world is going to stand for this? Do you think the rest of the world is just going stand by and let us turn the whole Middle East into Iraq? I'll give you a hint; the answer is no.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 10:18 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
You are a joker; during the last two years of Saddam's control, the trend was decreasing while the US trend is increasing. Bush loves to talk about "trends" and accomplishments, or haven't you noticed yet? LOL

Bush was president during the last two years of Saddam's control. Shouldn't he get some credit for intimidating Saddam into reducing his mass murders? Of course he should.

Subsequent to Saddam's removal the Iraq mass murder trend eventually began to increase to a substantial level still way below what was Saddam's level while Clinton was president.

However, more to the point of your ridiculous assertion. You claimed there were less deaths under Saddam than under the Iraq occupation. That claim is at best your personal fantasy.

cicerone imposter wrote:
...
When Saddam was in "control" of Iraq, they had more peace, less dead, more electricity, and more food. Bush destroyed all that!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 10:30 am
You are the prime a2k member who fails to understand the quagmire that Bush built. You twist all the available evidence of more violence and deaths in Iraq by your inability to understand basic math. More dead is more dead no matter how you wish to rationalize it. Saddam is also dead. Death rates are up under Bush - even after Saddam was put to death.

Bush has also been successful in spreading terrorism around the world; nothing Saddam would have accomplished in his wildest wet dream.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
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 07/25/2025 at 06:57:19