THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

BTW, I went to the BBC link cited above to read the Sanchez story. BBC has links to its archives as well as to a number of external sources about a myriad number of things, including the whole issue about the differing numbers of civilian casualties estimated.
In particular I got into the number of refugees post-Saddam. As with the casualty estimates, the number depends on who you talk to. According to OXFAM, 2 million people have gone to neighboring countries and another 2 million are internally displaced; i.e. still in Iraq but not where they were and not leaving where they were by choice.
The consequences of this migration are bad.

0 Replies

In 2007, Month by Month Daily Average of IBC's Count of Violent Deaths in Iraq:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

May = 3755 / 31 = 121

Surge now fully operational

June = 2386 / 30 = 80
July = 2077 / 31 = 67
August = 2084 / 31 = 67
September = 917 / 24 = 38*
October = ? / 31 = ?**

*Data currently available for only the first 24 days of September.
**No data yet available for October.

0 Replies

"Do you think that the House Foreign Affairs Committee might, after it has righted any number of ancient wrongs, look into what the Sam Hill is going on now? This very committee has a direct responsibility for the death of 600,000 Iraqis and the flight of some 2 million more from their homes. Does that bear a little looking into? While they are putting the genocide label on others, would the gentlemen and gentleladies of the committee consider putting some sort of label on themselves?

The horrific murders of the Armenians occurred almost a century ago. However, the murders in Iraq are going on now, fellas. Does that fact suggest that you might have more urgent business than chewing over crimes of yesteryear?

The answer is no, thanks to the Armenian lobby. Many persons of Armenian extraction live in vote-rich California, which explains why these politicians have flung themselves into the study of bygone events. Once again the pander bear stalks the land.

No countervailing Turkish lobby exists in California, but in Turkey, people are riled up over their being called names by disreputable American politicians. So we are faced with two dangers to counterbalance each other.

Danger number one is what will happen if Congress does not pass a resolution calling the events of 1915 genocide. That might result in a couple members of the California Congressional delegation losing their jobs a year from November. Danger number two is what happens if they go ahead with their genocide resolution. The Turks could kick the United States out of our Air Force Base at Insirlik, which it needs to carry on its shenanigans in Iraq. The Turks could do quite a few other things that we would not like to see them do, but better to cave in to another pressure group.

Committee chairman Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California, hit it on the head when he said, "We have to weigh the desire to express our solidarity with the Armenian people...against the risk that it could cause young men and women in the uniform of the United States armed services to pay an even heavier price."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071011/cm_thenation/20071029howl;_ylt=AoKU6WqkLeRm49CqIeXHWyP9wxIF

0 Replies

The horns of a dilemma in a frying pan beside a big fire.

Oh, if only we had not invaded Iraq.

If only the counsel that it was illegal, immoral, stupid, arrogant and bound to come to no good had prevailed.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

The horns of a dilemma in a frying pan beside a big fire.

Oh, if only we had not invaded Iraq.

If only the counsel that it was illegal, immoral, stupid, arrogant and bound to come to no good had prevailed.

here here

0 Replies

We must win and succeed in Iraq.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

We must win and succeed in Iraq.

WHY? WILL THE WORLD COME TO AN END IF WE DON'T?

IT DIDN'T WHEN WE LOSE IN VIETNAM.

0 Replies

Quote:

Reporter For Post Is Fatally Shot In Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Oct. 14 -- On Sunday afternoon, Salih Saif Aldin set out for one of Baghdad's most dangerous neighborhoods. He knew exactly where to go. He nodded, smiled, grabbed his camera. There was nothing he needed to say.

Saif Aldin always came back -- from death threats, from beatings, from kidnappings, from detentions by American soldiers, from the country's most notorious and deadly terrain -- but on Sunday he didn't. The 32-year-old Iraqi reporter in The Washington Post's Baghdad bureau was shot once in the forehead in the southwestern neighborhood of Sadiyah. He was the latest in a long line of reporters, most of them Iraqis, to be killed while covering the Iraq war. He was the first for The Washington Post.

"The death of Salih Saif Aldin in the service of our readers is a tragedy for everyone at The Washington Post. He was a brave and valuable reporter who contributed much to our coverage of Iraq," said Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of The Post. "We are in his debt. We grieve with his family, friends, fellow journalists and everyone in our Baghdad bureau."

At 2 p.m., Saif Aldin took a taxi from The Post's office to Sadiyah to interview residents about the sectarian violence there between Shiite militiamen and Sunni insurgents. It was his third trip to the embattled neighborhood within a week. For him, there were no red zones, no green zones, no neighborhoods out of bounds.

Two hours later, a man picked up Saif Aldin's cellphone and called a colleague at The Post to say he had been shot.

Residents of the neighborhood and Iraqi military officers at the scene said Saif Aldin was killed while taking photographs on a street where several houses had been burned. His wounds appeared to indicate he was shot at close range. His body was later observed lying on the street, covered with newspapers.

The area Saif Aldin was visiting is dominated by the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Some residents at the scene said they feared that soldiers from the Iraqi army, believed to be infiltrated by the militia, were responsible for his death.

"They killed him," one man whispered, pointing at members of the Iraqi army brigade on the street.

Iraqi police officers said they believed Saif Aldin was killed by Sunni men belonging to the nascent organization known as the Awakening Council, a tribal organization aligned with the U.S. military that started in the western province of Anbar and has spread to parts of Baghdad. Iraqi government officials have accused these Sunni tribesmen of abusing their partnership with the Americans to kill and kidnap residents.

Saif Aldin's death adds to a list of at least 118 journalists who have been killed in Iraq while on duty, nearly 100 of whom were Iraqis, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Michael Kelly, a columnist for The Post, was killed in April 2003 in Iraq when a Humvee he was traveling in drove into a canal.

Saif Aldin was killed in the same neighborhood where a journalist for the New York Times, Khalid Hassan, was shot and killed in July. Western news organizations rely heavily on their Iraqi staff members to navigate the hazards of reporting here: to witness scenes of car bombs, the carnage in hospitals, the grief inside the homes of Iraqis who have died in this war.

For The Post, no one did this more regularly, confidently and fearlessly than Saif Aldin, the divorced father of a 6-year-old daughter, Fatima. He had a striking presence: bald and barrel-chested, with a jagged scar on his bulging neck from a fight in his youth. He was a Sunni from Tikrit, the home town of Saddam Hussein and the epicenter of the insurgency early in the war.

source

0 Replies

ican wrote :

Quote:

We must win and succeed in Iraq.

and this is what
EDWARD LUTTWAK wrote :

Quote:

Western analysts are forever bleating about the strategic importance of the middle east. But despite its oil, this backward region is less relevant than ever, and it would be better for everyone if the rest of the world learned to ignore it

Quote:

Edward Luttwak is a CSIS senior fellow and has served as a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, and a number of allied governments as well as international corporations and financial institutions. He is a frequent lecturer at universities and military colleges in the United States and abroad and has testified before several congressional committees and presidential commissions.

sometime in the future we should find out who is right .
hbg(going to have another glass of water in the meantime)

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
We must win and succeed in Iraq.

WHY? WILL THE WORLD COME TO AN END IF WE DON'T?

IT DIDN'T WHEN WE LOSE IN VIETNAM.

I've been dealing with this for some time. It's the ultimate in pathetic assertions; the large, bolded assertion.

I think that Ican thinks we must win, because he doesn't like losing; more then any other consequence, that is what drives war supporters on. Their personal pride.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
We must win and succeed in Iraq.

WHY? WILL THE WORLD COME TO AN END IF WE DON'T?

IT DIDN'T WHEN WE LOSE IN VIETNAM.

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

Probably, the world will not come to an end no matter what we humans actually do to it!

In 2007, Month by Month Daily Average of IBC's Count of Violent Deaths in Iraq:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

May = 3755 / 31 = 121[/u]

Surge fully operational in June

June = 2386 / 30 = 80.
July = 2077 / 31 = 67.
August = 2084 / 31 = 67.
September = 1094 / 28 = 39.*
*Data currently available for only the first 28 days of September.
October = ? / 31 = ?**
**No data yet available for October.

Total Violent Deaths in Iraq:
1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210; average per day =1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140;
1/1/2003 - 8/24/2007 = 81,887; average per day= 81,887/1,708 days = 48;
Ratio = 140/48 = 2.9.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

xingu wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
We must win and succeed in Iraq.

WHY? WILL THE WORLD COME TO AN END IF WE DON'T?

IT DIDN'T WHEN WE LOSE IN VIETNAM.

I've been dealing with this for some time. It's the ultimate in pathetic assertions; the large, bolded assertion.

I think that Ican thinks we must win, because he doesn't like losing; more then any other consequence, that is what drives war supporters on. Their personal pride.

Cycloptichorn

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
xingu wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
We must win and succeed in Iraq.

WHY? WILL THE WORLD COME TO AN END IF WE DON'T?

IT DIDN'T WHEN WE LOSE IN VIETNAM.

I've been dealing with this for some time. It's the ultimate in pathetic assertions; the large, bolded assertion.

I think that Ican thinks we must win, because he doesn't like losing; more then any other consequence, that is what drives war supporters on. Their personal pride.

Cycloptichorn

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

You have already failed to detail how this will come about, Ican; I believe that when pressed you fall back on your typically poor statistical projections and combine them with your equally poor fantasies about Americans being suicide bombed into submission.

So, plz - enough with the big letters.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
xingu wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
We must win and succeed in Iraq.

WHY? WILL THE WORLD COME TO AN END IF WE DON'T?

IT DIDN'T WHEN WE LOSE IN VIETNAM.

I've been dealing with this for some time. It's the ultimate in pathetic assertions; the large, bolded assertion.

I think that Ican thinks we must win, because he doesn't like losing; more then any other consequence, that is what drives war supporters on. Their personal pride.

Cycloptichorn

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

HOW?

Statements made without evidence are meaningless.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

xingu wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
We must win and succeed in Iraq.

WHY? WILL THE WORLD COME TO AN END IF WE DON'T?

IT DIDN'T WHEN WE LOSE IN VIETNAM.

I've been dealing with this for some time. It's the ultimate in pathetic assertions; the large, bolded assertion.

I think that Ican thinks we must win, because he doesn't like losing; more then any other consequence, that is what drives war supporters on. Their personal pride.

Cycloptichorn

I figure ican puts up big bold letters because he's an old fart who can't see.

So I put up big bold letters so he can see what I'm saying without using a magnifying glass.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
xingu wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
We must win and succeed in Iraq.

WHY? WILL THE WORLD COME TO AN END IF WE DON'T?

IT DIDN'T WHEN WE LOSE IN VIETNAM.

I've been dealing with this for some time. It's the ultimate in pathetic assertions; the large, bolded assertion.

I think that Ican thinks we must win, because he doesn't like losing; more then any other consequence, that is what drives war supporters on. Their personal pride.

Cycloptichorn

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

You have already failed to detail how this will come about, Ican; I believe that when pressed you fall back on your typically poor statistical projections and combine them with your equally poor fantasies about Americans being suicide bombed into submission.

So, plz - enough with the big letters.

Cycloptichorn

Where is your evidence to support your statements?

I have repeatedly detailed how we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

So please - enough with your fraudulent statements.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
xingu wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
We must win and succeed in Iraq.

WHY? WILL THE WORLD COME TO AN END IF WE DON'T?

IT DIDN'T WHEN WE LOSE IN VIETNAM.

I've been dealing with this for some time. It's the ultimate in pathetic assertions; the large, bolded assertion.

I think that Ican thinks we must win, because he doesn't like losing; more then any other consequence, that is what drives war supporters on. Their personal pride.

Cycloptichorn

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

You have already failed to detail how this will come about, Ican; I believe that when pressed you fall back on your typically poor statistical projections and combine them with your equally poor fantasies about Americans being suicide bombed into submission.

So, plz - enough with the big letters.

Cycloptichorn

Where is your evidence to support your statements?

I have repeatedly detailed how we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

So please - enough with your fraudulent statements.

"Detailed" is the one thing you haven't done. When pressed on the issue, you half-heartedly respond with scare stories about being suicide bombed into abandoning the Constitution and forcible conversion to Islaam. When pressed on the ridiculousness of that, you circle the wagons and retreat to original principles.

There's no need to go through the whole thing again.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

...
I figure ican puts up big bold letters because he's an old fart who can't see.

So I put up big bold letters so he can see what I'm saying without using a magnifying glass.

Wrong again, xingu! Listen up! ... Correction! Read up!

I use big bold letters so you as well as others like you find it some what more difficult to ignore or distort what I post.

[size=8]Absent rational retort's to my statements, why don't you print this size?[/size]

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
xingu wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
We must win and succeed in Iraq.

WHY? WILL THE WORLD COME TO AN END IF WE DON'T?

IT DIDN'T WHEN WE LOSE IN VIETNAM.

I've been dealing with this for some time. It's the ultimate in pathetic assertions; the large, bolded assertion.

I think that Ican thinks we must win, because he doesn't like losing; more then any other consequence, that is what drives war supporters on. Their personal pride.

Cycloptichorn

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

You have already failed to detail how this will come about, Ican; I believe that when pressed you fall back on your typically poor statistical projections and combine them with your equally poor fantasies about Americans being suicide bombed into submission.

So, plz - enough with the big letters.

Cycloptichorn

Where is your evidence to support your statements?

I have repeatedly detailed how we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

So please - enough with your fraudulent statements.

[size=8]"Detailed" is the one thing you haven't done. When pressed on the issue, you half-heartedly respond with scare stories about being suicide bombed into abandoning the Constitution and forcible conversion to Islaam. When pressed on the ridiculousness of that, you circle the wagons and retreat to original principles.

There's no need to go through the whole thing again.[/size]

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo, your posts are malarky!

0 Replies

Your rhetoric depends more on size and bolding then it does on logic and the ability to properly predict the future.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know