9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 07:44 am
Kurdish rebels kill 13 Turkish soldiers


Quote:
Istanbul: Kurdish rebels killed 13 Turkish soldiers on Sunday in a clash in the country's southeast, and troops responded by shelling an area near Iraq to try to stop the rebels from escaping across the border, the military said.

Turkey has been pressing Iraq and the United States to hit the bases of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, in northern Iraq, and has considered a unilateral military operation across the border to root out the rebels.

The soldiers were killed in the southeastern province of Sirnak, not far from where troops and rebels clashed two days earlier, according to a statement on the military's Web site.

An operation to track down the rebels was under way, and troops shelled areas near the border to try to prevent rebels from reaching their bases in northern Iraq, the statement said.

The clash "boosted our determination and strength" to fight terrorism, the military said.

Abdul-Rahman Al Chadarchi, a spokesman for the Kurdish rebel group, confirmed the attack and said the rebel fighters sustained no casualties.

Kurdish rebels have been staging attacks on Turkey from their bases in northern Iraq. But the US opposes any military move into Iraq by Turkey.

Turkey signed a counterterrorism pact with Iraq in September and had demanded it be allowed to send its troops to Iraq's north to pursue the Kurdish rebels. But Iraq did not agree to the demand under pressure from the leaders of its semi-autonomous Kurdish region.

"We are not concerned with this issue because these clashes and shelling happened inside Turkish territories. This is a Turkish internal problem," Jamal Abdullah, a spokesman for the government of Iraq's Kurdish region, said after Sunday's attack.

The PKK is branded a terrorist organization by the US and the European Union. Its members have fought Turkish government forces since 1984, seeking autonomy for Turkey's ethnic Kurds. The fighting has claimed tens of thousands of lives.

Turkey's military on Sunday designated 27 "security zones" off limits to civilians in eastern and southeastern regions where the borders with Iraq and Iran converge. Starting Tuesday, the zones will be in place until Dec. 10.

Some experts have speculated that the zones are part of preparations for a possible Iraq campaign.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 09:57 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701448_pf.html

Quote:
Top Iraqis Pull Back From Key U.S. Goal
Reconciliation Seen Unattainable Amid Struggle for Power

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 8, 2007; A01

BAGHDAD -- For much of this year, the U.S. military strategy in Iraq has sought to reduce violence so that politicians could bring about national reconciliation, but several top Iraqi leaders say they have lost faith in that broad goal.

Iraqi leaders argue that sectarian animosity is entrenched in the structure of their government. Instead of reconciliation, they now stress alternative and perhaps more attainable goals: streamlining the government bureaucracy, placing experienced technocrats in positions of authority and improving the dismal record of providing basic services.

"I don't think there is something called reconciliation, and there will be no reconciliation as such," said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurd. "To me, it is a very inaccurate term. This is a struggle about power."


Humam Hamoudi, a prominent Shiite cleric and parliament member, said any future reconciliation would emerge naturally from an efficient, fair government, not through short-term political engineering among Sunnis and Shiites.

"Reconciliation should be a result and not a goal by itself," he said. "You should create the atmosphere for correct relationships, and not wave slogans that 'I want to reconcile with you.' "

The acrimony among politicians has strained the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki close to the breaking point. Nearly half of the cabinet ministers have left their posts. The Shiite alliance in parliament, which once controlled 130 of the 275 seats, is disintegrating with the defection of two important parties.

Legislation to manage the oil sector, the country's most valuable natural resource, and to bring former Baath Party members back into the government have not made it through the divided parliament. The U.S. military's latest hope for grass-roots reconciliation, the recruitment of Sunni tribesmen into the Iraqi police force, was denounced last week in stark terms by Iraq's leading coalition of Shiite lawmakers.

"There has been no significant progress for months," said Tariq al-Hashimi, one of Iraq's two vice presidents and the most influential Sunni politician in the country. "There is a shortage of goodwill from those parties who are now in the driver's seat of the country."

Iraqi leaders say there are few signs that Maliki's government is any more willing to share power now than 15 months ago, when he unveiled a 28-point national reconciliation plan. A key proposal then was an amnesty for insurgents -- an "olive branch," Maliki said at the time -- to bring members of the resistance into the political fold.

But over the summer and fall of 2006, sectarian violence rose to its highest levels, driving thousands of people out of mixed neighborhoods and pushing Sunni and Shiite politicians further apart. The amnesty never materialized, nor has the reconciliation.

Some politicians remain hopeful. Hashimi, the Sunni vice president, recently drafted what he calls the "Iraqi National Compact," a 25-point statement of principles that condemns all types of extremism and sectarian discrimination.

Hashimi's statement calls for candid dialogue among Iraq's various factions. On Sept. 27, he met with the country's most respected Shiite religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, a rare and symbolic gesture that underscored the possibility of cooperation across the sectarian gap. Hashimi said Sistani expressed support for the national compact while requesting minor editing of the document.

"I have started from scratch. I know that," Hashimi said. "This will create a new environment between the Iraqi politicians to talk on sensitive issues face to face in an attempt to alleviate the reciprocal paranoia between the Iraqi sects and ethnic groups."

But Hashimi said he sensed no fundamental willingness from Maliki's government to reconcile with the Sunnis. It has been two months since the largest Sunni coalition walked out of the cabinet when its list of 11 far-reaching demands were not met. Hashimi acknowledges some progress on the demands -- such as a program for releasing prisoners during the holy month of Ramadan -- but calls the steps insufficient.

"Pulling out from the government was not a target, it's just a means, a way to encourage the government to perform in a better way," Hashimi said. "The response of the government has been very, very slow."

Sunni leaders sense that their Shiite counterparts believe the era of Sunni leadership in Iraq is gone for good -- "that Humpty Dumpty had a fall and cannot be put back together again" as one senior Iraqi official put it -- and Sunnis should accept the new reality. Sunni leaders, however, tend to express more limited goals than reclaiming the government.

"I, as deputy prime minister responsible for the portfolio of security and services, until now, have never been consulted on any security operation taking place in Iraq," said Salam Z. al-Zobaee, Iraq's second-highest Sunni official. "The Sunnis, even if they've been participating in the government, are still marginalized in decision-making."

The idea of "reconciliation" in Iraq has always been short on specifics. To Sunnis, it tends to mean Shiites will release their grip on decision-making, allow them greater influence in the government, crack down on militants regardless of their sect and promote peaceful cooperation between politicians. Sunnis demand the release of thousands of prisoners who have never been charged, the purging of all militiamen from the Iraqi security forces and influence in military decisions.

To Shiites, reconciliation is a process fraught with risks that Sunni "supremacists" will attempt to seize their former position of authority over the majority Shiites. Many Shiites believe that reconciliation requires punishing those who, during Saddam Hussein's government, ruthlessly killed and repressed Shiites and Kurds.

"It's clearly perceived by the government that reconciliation is clearly a winner for the Sunnis and not a winner for the Shias," said Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief of staff for the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq. "The question becomes: How do you start balancing that scale a little bit?"

Many Shiites, still aggrieved by the crimes committed against them under Hussein, are not ready for new programs or legislation attempting to force a balance into existence.

"You cannot have reconciliation without justice, and justice has not been accomplished yet in Iraq. They have tried and executed not more than 10 people, Saddam and his people, and that is not enough," a senior Shiite government official said on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. "The same people who were killing Iraqis at the time of Saddam in the name of the state and in the name of national security are doing it now with the insurgents."

Most of the U.S.-backed "benchmarks" for Iraqi political progress -- intended to push along reconciliation -- have so far not been reached. The government has not passed legislation that would govern the country's oil resources or allow former Baath Party members to reclaim government jobs, nor has it completed a review of the constitution or enacted an amnesty program. A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office judged that only three of 18 benchmarks had been met.

"The polarization of Iraq's major sects and ethnic groups and fighting among Sh'ia factions further diminishes the stability of Iraq's governing coalition and its potential to enact legislation needed for sectarian reconciliation," the report concluded.

Several Iraqi officials say they are hamstrung by the very government structure they are operating within. In 2003, the U.S. government handpicked a 25-member Iraqi Governing Council -- including 13 Shiites and five Sunni Arabs -- that would mirror the population's majority Shiite makeup. In 2005, when voters chose political parties rather than individual candidates, politicians' loyalties to sect over any other criteria solidified.

The resulting Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish blocs emerged as the dominant political actors, with individual politicians subservient to the group. Leadership positions were parceled out in a de facto quota system to achieve at least nominal balance among the rivals.

This imperfect balance of power, deemed the "national unity government," entrenches these sectarian divisions and prioritizes a politician's ethnic or sect background above experience or ability, Iraqi officials say. The system makes selecting Iraqi ambassadors or cabinet ministers an exercise in horse-trading subject to bitter disputes.

"Iraq cannot be ruled by this notion of a national unity government, because that has been a recipe for paralysis," said Salih, the Kurdish deputy prime minister. "We need a government of majority, comprising the moderates, representing the key communities of Iraq and delivering to its constituents, and willing to take on the extremists."

The fragmentation of Iraq's leading Shiite coalition, while potentially leading to more instability, paralysis in parliament and gun battles in the streets, might be an opportunity to lessen the reliance of politicians on their sectarian blocs, one senior government official said.

"We need to break that mold of politics here, this politics where sectarian politics is the norm," the official said on the condition of anonymity because of concern about publicly supporting the disintegration of the Shiite bloc.

The Iraqi government plans to consolidate its cabinet and install skilled technocrats in place of inexperienced political appointees, officials said. Hamoudi, the Shiite member of parliament, said he expected that the 37 cabinet seats would be reduced to 22 or 23 in coming months. Certain public service ministries, such as Justice, Transportation, Health and Agriculture, would in theory become "independent" from political parties, he said.

"It's critical because now the feeling is that the national unity government has proven to be a failure in the region -- in Palestine, in Lebanon, and now in Iraq," Hamoudi said. "We need a strong government that conducts its duty and not that looks good."

Some potential progress toward reconciliation has run into recent trouble. The U.S. effort to recruit Sunni tribesmen to join the police force and fight the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq was strongly opposed last week by Shiite officials, who asserted that the Sunni recruits were killing innocent people under the guise of fighting insurgents.

"We demand that the American administration stop this adventure, which is rejected by all the sons of the people and its national political powers," the leading Shiite political coalition said in a statement. "Their elements are criminals who cannot be trusted or relied upon."

Special correspondent Saad al-Izzi contributed to this report.


The whole place is just slowly sliding downhill...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 11:39 am
xingu wrote:
Quote:
Report says war on terror is fueling al Qaeda
Mon Oct 8, 2007 8:50am EDT
By Kate Kelland

LONDON (Reuters) - Six years after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fueling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday.

...

The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria.

In Afghanistan, Rogers also called for an immediate scaling down of military activities, an injection of more civil aid and negotiations with militia groups aimed at bringing them into the political process.

...

The diplomacy and negotiation platitudes, euphemisms, cliches, bromides, panaceas, cure-alls, and elixirs ride again.

A proposal for how to solve any problem must meet at least one requirement. It must explain how it can actually solve the problem.

Al-Qaeda and other such malignancy problems are no more cureable by diplomacy and negotiation than is cancer cureable before it has been removed.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 12:00 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701448_pf.html

Quote:
Top Iraqis Pull Back From Key U.S. Goal
Reconciliation Seen Unattainable Amid Struggle for Power

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 8, 2007; A01

...

Special correspondent Saad al-Izzi contributed to this report.


The whole place is just slowly sliding downhill...

Cycloptichorn

On the otherhand, the whole place is just slowly creeping uphill.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 12:00 pm
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
Quote:
Report says war on terror is fueling al Qaeda
Mon Oct 8, 2007 8:50am EDT
By Kate Kelland

LONDON (Reuters) - Six years after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fueling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday.

...

The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria.

In Afghanistan, Rogers also called for an immediate scaling down of military activities, an injection of more civil aid and negotiations with militia groups aimed at bringing them into the political process.

...

The diplomacy and negotiation platitudes, euphemisms, cliches, bromides, panaceas, cure-alls, and elixirs ride again.

A proposal for how to solve any problem must meet at least one requirement. It must explain how it can actually solve the problem.

Al-Qaeda and other such malignancy problems are no more cureable by diplomacy and negotiation than is cancer cureable before it has been removed.


The alternatives have proven to be worse then the proposed cures, Ican.

I think you need to stop using the word 'must.'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 12:33 pm
cycloptichorn wrote:
The alternatives have proven to be worse then the proposed cures, Ican.

Proven by whom? The proposed cures, having failed when tried in some previous cases, haven't yet been tried in Iraq. So what is this alleged proof you claim exists?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 12:35 pm
ican711nm wrote:
cycloptichorn wrote:
The alternatives have proven to be worse then the proposed cures, Ican.

Proven by whom? The proposed cures, having failed when tried in some previous cases, haven't yet been tried in Iraq. So what is this alleged proof you claim exists?


The proposed cure is currently being attempted in Iraq, and failing. Proper and common sense would tell us that a different course of treatment is appropriate at this point.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 12:58 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cycloptichorn wrote:
The alternatives have proven to be worse then the proposed cures, Ican.

Proven by whom? The proposed cures, having failed when tried in some previous cases, haven't yet been tried in Iraq. So what is this alleged proof you claim exists?


The proposed cure is currently being attempted in Iraq, and failing. Proper and common sense would tell us that a different course of treatment is appropriate at this point.

Cycloptichorn

The cures that were proposed in the article I referenced,

"Report says war on terror is fueling al Qaeda
Mon Oct 8, 2007 8:50am EDT
By Kate Kelland"


are diplomacy and negotiation. Those proposed cures have failed in some previous cases, including past Iraq cases. They have not yet been tried again in Iraq. What evidence do you have that such cures will work this time when they often haven't worked in the past? I bet the answer is you do not have any such evidence.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 02:29 pm
U.S. forces have found a new ally in the fight against al-qaeda : former SUNNI members of SH's old army .
and it seems that the shiite majority are beginning to worry about this new american ally .
if you wonder why , remember that SH used the SUNNI members of his army to control and persecute the shiite MAJORITY of the country !
it's not really surprising that many shiites look towards iran for help - because the majority of iranians are shiites too !
so they think they can get more protection from their iranian shiite brothers than from iraqi sunnis that were formerly members of SH army - not too surprising , is it ?


Quote:
New loyalties give Baghdad reprieve

By Hugh Sykes

BBC News, Baghdad


The US and UK governments have recently announced they will be reducing troop numbers in Iraq. But even after this withdrawal, thousands will remain in the country, and for some Iraqis the new alliances which are springing up are proving controversial.


A scene from a bright sunny Baghdad day - just after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 - remains in my mind as vivid as a film.
A heavily armed US tank commander and his crew stand warily behind a roll of razor wire in the centre of Baghdad, while the crowd on the other side of the wire violently attack a lone Iraqi soldier who is trying to walk through the throng with his hands held high, holding two small pieces of white cloth.

Men in the crowd jump on him, knock off his helmet, and beat him to the ground, kicking and punching.

One of the American soldiers pulls the razor wire aside to create a small gap, grabs the surrendering Iraqi soldier by the collar of his jacket and pulls him to safety. And clearest of all in that scene is the frozen expression of fear and confusion on the face of the American tank commander.

Troop 'surge'

Many months before the Iraq war had even begun, an American general, the Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki, testified to a Senate committee in Washington.

He was asked how many troops would be required to secure Iraq after victory. His reply: "Something in the order of several hundred thousand."


The Deputy Secretary of State for Defence, Paul Wolfowitz, retorted that the general's estimate was "wildly off the mark".

"It's hard to conceive," he went on, "that it would take more troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself."

General Shinseki lost his job.

Since then, nearly 4,000 American troops have been killed, more than 10,000 have been severely wounded and at least 80,000 Iraqis have died.

President George W Bush, in his TV address last month, claimed that the extra 30,000 troops brought specially to Iraq for the so-called "surge" against car bombers and sectarian killers in Baghdad were beginning to achieve some success.

"Our troops are performing brilliantly," he said. "Ordinary life is beginning to return [to Baghdad]."

'Oppressive atmosphere'

It is true, but only to a very limited extent.

The president referred, for example, to markets that were shuttered a year ago, but which were now re-opening.


I went to one of those places, the so-called Thieves' Market, in part of the city centre where dozens of people have been killed by car and roadside bombs.
It is called the Thieves' Market because Baghdad citizens who have had their homes robbed would go there to see if their belongings were on sale.

And the section I visited was not shuttered.

Shops and stalls selling satellite dishes and decoders, watches, and pirate DVD films were open.

There was a friendly welcome. I was given a glass of steaming hot sugary tea.

But there was an oppressive atmosphere, and along the entire length of the street there was a high concrete blast wall between the pavement and the road.


There were more blast walls along most of the main street that we drove down to get to the Thieves' Market.
Many parts of Baghdad have become concrete mazes.

New alliance

Car and truck bomb attacks on civilians have not stopped but the number has fallen significantly since the start of the surge and of the Baghdad security plan earlier this year.

Those explosions were nearly always the work of an unholy alliance of al-Qaeda in Iraq and former Saddam Hussein Baath Party loyalists who had lost their jobs and their entire livelihoods in the indiscriminate de-Baathification process that took place after the invasion.



But many of those Saddam loyalists who used to shoot and bomb Americans are now fighting alongside US troops against al Qaeda.

One of the sheikhs co-operating with the Americans, Abu Risha, was assassinated in an al-Qaeda bomb attack in September.

President Bush paid tribute to him as a brave man.

American troops helped the Iraqi armed forces guard mourners at his funeral in Ramadi in Anbar province, the district west of Baghdad that was once routinely described as "the heartland of the insurgency".

This new alliance of Americans and Sunni Muslim sheikhs against al-Qaeda is trumpeted by the United States as a considerable success. But many Shia Muslims are wary of it.

To them, this looks like the Americans taking sides with their enemy, with the minority that ruled over them and oppressed them through the dark years of Saddam Hussein.


And they will need to be convinced that this does not pave the way for another act of betrayal like 1991, after the Gulf War, when the first President George Bush urged Shia Muslims in Iraq to rise up against Saddam Hussein.

And when they did, America did nothing to protect them from the slaughter that followed.



source :
A NEW ALLIANCE ?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 03:38 pm
I stand corrected!

Looks like negotiations in Iraq have gotten us a "new ally," a Sunni minority.

But that appears to mean we are likely to have to renogtiate with our old ally, the Shiite majority.

Nonetheless, negotiations, but not US withdrawal, have led to reductions in the murder rate in Iraq ... so far!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 08:02 am
Quote:
Nonetheless, negotiations, but not US withdrawal, have led to reductions in the murder rate in Iraq ... so far!


Or the relentless civil violence of the last few years in Iraq have led to countless deaths; displaced persons both inside and outside of Iraq; and people being divided up into secatarian enclaves (walls.)
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 10:19 am
revel wrote:
Quote:
Nonetheless, negotiations, but not US withdrawal, have led to reductions in the murder rate in Iraq ... so far!


Or the relentless civil violence of the last few years in Iraq have led to countless deaths; displaced persons both inside and outside of Iraq; and people being divided up into secatarian enclaves (walls.)

The violent deaths of civilians (i.e., non-murderers) are countable and have been counted. However, the number of "displaced persons both inside and outside of Iraq; and people being divided up into secatarian enclaves (wall)." has not been counted, but I bet are also countable.

Quote:
Documented civilian deaths from violence
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

74,837 - 81,556

...

This data is based on 11,295 database entries from the beginning of the war to 21 September 2007. The most recent weeks are always in the process of compilation and will rise further. Graphs are based on the higher number in our totals. Gaps in recording and reporting suggest that even our highest totals to date may be missing many civilian deaths from violence. See Recent Events for as yet unpublished incidents, and read About IBC for a better description of the project's scope and limitations.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 10:32 am
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
Quote:
Nonetheless, negotiations, but not US withdrawal, have led to reductions in the murder rate in Iraq ... so far!


Or the relentless civil violence of the last few years in Iraq have led to countless deaths; displaced persons both inside and outside of Iraq; and people being divided up into secatarian enclaves (walls.)

The violent deaths of civilians (i.e., non-murderers) are countable and have been counted. However, the number of "displaced persons both inside and outside of Iraq; and people being divided up into secatarian enclaves (wall)." has not been counted, but I bet are also countable.


In fact, it has been counted:

Quote:
Iraq's neighbours are all experiencing the ramifications of the violence tearing up the country. UNHCR estimated that approximately 2 million Iraqis - between 500,000 to 1 million Iraqis in Syria; 750,000 in Jordan; between 20,000 to 80,000 in Egypt; up to 40,000 in Lebanon; and several thousand in Turkey - have fled their homeland thus far.


http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21505&Cr=iraq&Cr1

Quote:


IOM says 2.2 mn Iraqis internally displaced

GENEVA, Sept 7 (KUNA) -- A new report issued by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) says nore than 2.2 million Iraqis were internally displaced.

IOM spokesperson Jean-Philippe Chauzy said that data . . . estimates that the number of persons displaced since the bombing of the Al-Askari Shrine in Samarra on February 22, 2006 to be 1,011,870 individuals.

This figure combined with the 1.2 million individuals who were internally displaced before February 22, results in a total of over 2.2 million Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Iraq to date, he said.

According to Chauzy, eleven out of fifteen central and southern governorates are now severely restricting the entry and registration of IDPs. . .


http://www.indianmuslims.info/news/2007/sep/07/iom_says_2_2_mn_iraqis_internally_displaced.html

That's 4.2 million Iraqis either driven from their homes to other areas of Iraq or out of the country altogether.

The number of Iraqis killed depends on who you ask, but is at least 100k and probably closer to 500k if not more. As the country is a war zone, reporting the deaths isn't the easiest thing to do; so it's understandable that this number would be a little fuzzy. Logic tells us that there have been far, far more people injured then killed.

Let's say roughly 5 million Iraqis are either dead, displaced, or injured due to the war; that's about a quarter of the population of Iraq, gone.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 12:03 pm
Cyclo, according to IBC, the maximum number of violent civilian deaths in Iraq
since January 1, 2003 is:
as of September 21, 2007 = . 81,556;
and, as of August 31, 2007 = 80,793;
and, the difference ................. = 763.

Your numbers about displaced and injured Iraqis may or may not be correct.

Assuming your numbers are correct, what do you think those numbers would have been had we not invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein's government? The following is provided to help you estimate an answer:

VIOLENT DEATHS OF IRAQ CIVILIANS

YEAR ........ CLINTON ....... YEAR ...... BUSH
2000 ......... 23,265 ......... 2008 ...... ?
1999 ......... 45,437 ......... 2007 ...... ?
1998 ......... 65,731 ......... 2006 ...... 23,482
1997 ......... 89,453 ......... 2005 ...... 12,286
1996 ........ 107,667 ........ 2004 ...... 12,286
1995 ......... 96,472 ......... 2003 ...... 12,286
1994 ......... 87,940 ......... 2002 ...... 15,025
1993 ......... 53,951 ......... 2001 ...... 19,272
TOTALS = . 569,916 ........................ 94,638
Avg./yr = ... 71,239 ......................... 15,773
RATIO OF AVGS./YR, CLINTON/BUSH = 4.52
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 12:05 pm
I have a hard time believing that over 100 thousand Iraqis were killed violently in 1997. Where does this statistic come from?

This would mean that more Iraqis were being murdered in one year under Saddam then in the entire Iraq war to date. That sort of claim deserves documentation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 12:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I have a hard time believing that over 100 thousand Iraqis were killed violently in 1997. Where does this statistic come from?

This would mean that more Iraqis were being murdered in one year under Saddam then in the entire Iraq war to date. That sort of claim deserves documentation.

Cycloptichorn

I have repeatedly posted in this thread the violent deaths in Iraq during the years 1991 through 2002. Those statistics were computed by me from Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year 1980 through 2004, Iraq Demography and Vital Statistics. The violent Iraq deaths for the Clinton years were excerpted from those calculations.

Yes, 1996 was a particularly violently deadly year for civilians in Iraq. Apparently you have forgotten another repeated post by me. In 1996, Saddam, when invited by a group of Kurds, invaded Irbil in northeastern Iraq, and as a result murdered more than his usual number of Iraqis in 1996. Oh, yes, don't forget that Irbil is in an area that Saddam allegedly "did not control." He merely murdered there.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 12:54 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I have a hard time believing that over 100 thousand Iraqis were killed violently in 1997. Where does this statistic come from?

This would mean that more Iraqis were being murdered in one year under Saddam then in the entire Iraq war to date. That sort of claim deserves documentation.

Cycloptichorn

I have repeatedly posted in this thread the violent deaths in Iraq during the years 1991 through 2002. Those statistics were computed by me from Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year 1980 through 2004, Iraq Demography and Vital Statistics. The violent Iraq deaths for the Clinton years were excerpted from those calculations.

Yes, 1996 was a particularly violently deadly year for civilians in Iraq. Apparently you have forgotten another repeated post by me. In 1996, Saddam, when invited by a group of Kurds, invaded Irbil in northeastern Iraq, and as a result murdered more than his usual number of Iraqis in 1996. Oh, yes, don't forget that Irbil is in an area that Saddam allegedly "did not control." He merely murdered there.


Can you give me further articles of evidence that Saddam killed 100 thousand in Irbil in 1996? I can't seem to locate actual accounts of what happened or any evidence of such huge numbers being killed.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 01:05 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I have a hard time believing that over 100 thousand Iraqis were killed violently in 1997. Where does this statistic come from?

This would mean that more Iraqis were being murdered in one year under Saddam then in the entire Iraq war to date. That sort of claim deserves documentation.

Cycloptichorn

I have repeatedly posted in this thread the violent deaths in Iraq during the years 1991 through 2002. Those statistics were computed by me from Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year 1980 through 2004, Iraq Demography and Vital Statistics. The violent Iraq deaths for the Clinton years were excerpted from those calculations.

Yes, 1996 was a particularly violently deadly year for civilians in Iraq. Apparently you have forgotten another repeated post by me. In 1996, Saddam, when invited by a group of Kurds, invaded Irbil in northeastern Iraq, and as a result murdered more than his usual number of Iraqis in 1996. Oh, yes, don't forget that Irbil is in an area that Saddam allegedly "did not control." He merely murdered there.


Can you give me further articles of evidence that Saddam killed 100 thousand in Irbil in 1996? I can't seem to locate actual accounts of what happened or any evidence of such huge numbers being killed.

Cycloptichorn

I did not claim that Saddam killed 100,000 in Irbil in 1996. I did not claim how many Saddam killed in Irbil in 1996. I claimed that his usual number of murders was more in 1996 because he invaded Irbil in 1996.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 01:12 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I have a hard time believing that over 100 thousand Iraqis were killed violently in 1997. Where does this statistic come from?

This would mean that more Iraqis were being murdered in one year under Saddam then in the entire Iraq war to date. That sort of claim deserves documentation.

Cycloptichorn

I have repeatedly posted in this thread the violent deaths in Iraq during the years 1991 through 2002. Those statistics were computed by me from Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year 1980 through 2004, Iraq Demography and Vital Statistics. The violent Iraq deaths for the Clinton years were excerpted from those calculations.

Yes, 1996 was a particularly violently deadly year for civilians in Iraq. Apparently you have forgotten another repeated post by me. In 1996, Saddam, when invited by a group of Kurds, invaded Irbil in northeastern Iraq, and as a result murdered more than his usual number of Iraqis in 1996. Oh, yes, don't forget that Irbil is in an area that Saddam allegedly "did not control." He merely murdered there.


Can you give me further articles of evidence that Saddam killed 100 thousand in Irbil in 1996? I can't seem to locate actual accounts of what happened or any evidence of such huge numbers being killed.

Cycloptichorn

I did not claim that Saddam killed 100,000 in Irbil in 1996. I did not claim how many Saddam killed in Irbil in 1996. I claimed that his usual number of murders was more in 1996 because he invaded Irbil in 1996.


If you can't provide actual evidence of how many Saddam killed in 1996, I'm going to have to invalidate your numbers and request that you stop writing them here. It is intellectually dishonest to do so.

I need a source which is verifiable online, not some set of encylopedias you have lying around. There's no way to verify the accuracy of that information and therefore no point in including it in this discussion.

Surely, if what you claim is true, there would be plenty of online evidence to show what happened or even where the numbers come from; please provide this to bolster your argument, or withdraw your argument.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 01:31 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I have a hard time believing that over 100 thousand Iraqis were killed violently in 1997. Where does this statistic come from?

This would mean that more Iraqis were being murdered in one year under Saddam then in the entire Iraq war to date. That sort of claim deserves documentation.

Cycloptichorn

I have repeatedly posted in this thread the violent deaths in Iraq during the years 1991 through 2002. Those statistics were computed by me from Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year 1980 through 2004, Iraq Demography and Vital Statistics. The violent Iraq deaths for the Clinton years were excerpted from those calculations.

Yes, 1996 was a particularly violently deadly year for civilians in Iraq. Apparently you have forgotten another repeated post by me. In 1996, Saddam, when invited by a group of Kurds, invaded Irbil in northeastern Iraq, and as a result murdered more than his usual number of Iraqis in 1996. Oh, yes, don't forget that Irbil is in an area that Saddam allegedly "did not control." He merely murdered there.


Can you give me further articles of evidence that Saddam killed 100 thousand in Irbil in 1996? I can't seem to locate actual accounts of what happened or any evidence of such huge numbers being killed.

Cycloptichorn

I did not claim that Saddam killed 100,000 in Irbil in 1996. I did not claim how many Saddam killed in Irbil in 1996. I claimed that his usual number of murders was more in 1996 because he invaded Irbil in 1996.


If you can't provide actual evidence of how many Saddam killed in 1996, I'm going to have to invalidate your numbers and request that you stop writing them here. It is intellectually dishonest to do so.

I need a source which is verifiable online, not some set of encylopedias you have lying around. There's no way to verify the accuracy of that information and therefore no point in including it in this discussion.

Surely, if what you claim is true, there would be plenty of online evidence to show what happened or even where the numbers come from; please provide this to bolster your argument, or withdraw your argument.

Cycloptichorn

Wow, that's a second distortion of what I actually wrote! I didn't claim I "can't provide actual evidence of how many Saddam killed in 1996."

So you say you "need a source which is verifiable online." No you don't need that. Rather you want that. I bet you want that so you can distort what I write at least a third time. Laughing

Why you are unwilling to get these statistics all by yourself from a source you trust is not known to me. But when I have more time, I'll do an on-line search for these statistics all by myself. Shocked
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 0.21 seconds on 08/02/2025 at 01:07:50