9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 09:23 pm
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
A Month by Month, Daily Average of IBC's Count of Violent Deaths in Iraq, After April 30, 2007:

May = 3,755 / 31 = ……………… 121 per day
…………….. Surge fully operational in June …………….
June = 2,386 / 30 = …………...... 80 per day.
July = 2,077 / 31 = ………….......... 67 per day.
August = 2,084 / 31 = ……...…..... 67 per day.
September = 1,333 / 30 = ………... 44 per day.
October = 1,962 / 31 = ……...….... 63 per day.
November = 980 / 30 = ……....…..…. 33 per day.

December = ----? / 31= …………… ? per day.*


… *Data currently available for only
first 0 days of this month.
___________________________________________________________________________

As of November 30, 2007, Total Iraq Violent Deaths since January 1, 2003 = 87,683
___________________________________________________________________________

Daily Average Violent Deaths in Iraq--PRE and POST January 1, 2003:

PRE = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140 per day;
POST = 1/1/2003 - 11/30/2007 = 87,683/1,795 days = ….. 49 per day;
PRE / POST = 140/49 = 2.87.
___________________________________________________________________________

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.

The USA wins and succeeds in Iraq when the daily rate of violent deaths in Iraq decreases below 30, remains less than 30, while we are removing our troops, and remains less than 30 for at least a year after we have completed our departure.

==========================================================

http://www.icasualties.org
MILITARY FATALITIES IN IRAQ BY MONTH:

As of December 31, 2007 = 1748 days in Iraq.

Month .... Totals ……. US ….. UK …. OCC …. DA
12-2007 ..... 24 ………. 23……. 1 …….. 0 …… 0.77{0.77=24/31}
11-2007 ...... 40 ……….. 37…….. 2 …….. 1 ……. 1
10-2007 ...... 40 ……….. 38 …... 1 …….. 1 ……. 1
9-2007 ........ 69 ……….. 65 ……. 2 …….. 2 ……. 2
8-2007 ........ 88 ……….. 84 ……. 4 …….. 0 ……. 3
7-2007 ........ 87 ……….. 78 ……. 8 …….. 1 ……. 3
6-2007 ….... 108 ………. 101 ……. 7 …….. 0 ……. 4
5-2007 ....... 131 ……… 126 …... 3 …….. 2 ……. 4
4-2007 ....... 117 …….. 104 …… 12 …….. 1 ……. 4
3-2007 ........ 82 ……….. 81 ….… 1 ……… 0 ……. 3
2-2007 ........ 84 ……….. 81 ….… 3 ……… 1 ……. 3
1-2007 ........ 86 ……….. 83 ….… 3 ……… 0 ……. 3

...

3-2003 ….... 92 ....... 65 ….... 27 …….... 0 ……. 3 …
Total .... 4211 …. 3904 …. 174 ..... 133 …… 2.41{2.41=4211/1748}

US=United States
UK=United Kingdom
OCC=Other Coalition Countries
DA=Daily Average (for the month)
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 06:54 am
Quote:
Another 22,586-24,159 civilian deaths have been recorded in 2007 through Iraq Body Count's extensive monitoring of media and official reports. These figures, though undoubtedly incomplete, are the most comprehensive and well-established currently available, and show beyond any doubt that civil security in Iraq remains in a parlous state. Figures for the most recent months indicate that violence in Iraq has returned to the monthly levels IBC was recording in 2005, a year which was itself (until 2006) the worst since the invasion.


Civilian deaths from violence in 2007
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 08:38 am
The Five Iraqs
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071230_the_five_iraqs/
Posted on Dec 30, 2007
By Scott Ritter

It has become a mantra of sorts among the faltering Republican candidates: Victory is at hand in Iraq. Mitt Romney, in particular, has taken to so openly embracing the "success" of the U.S. troop "surge" that it has become the centerpiece of his litany of attacks on the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton.

"Think of what's happened this year," Romney recently implored a crowd in Iowa. "General [David] Petraeus came in to report to Congress and Hillary Clinton said she couldn't believe him. She said she just couldn't believe General Petraeus. Now think about that. He's been proven to be right. He should be on the cover, by the way, of Time magazine, and not Putin."

Clinton, for her part, has stood her ground. Addressing a crowd of voters in Iowa, she took a swipe back at Romney: "We all know the Republican candidates are just plain wrong when they declare mission accomplished about the troop surge." She went on to note that U.S. casualty figures in Iraq for 2007 were at an all-time high, and that for all of the positive reports concerning the surge, Iraq remains a nation on the verge of a civil war, no closer today to a political solution than it was before the escalation. She promised that, if nominated, "I will not hesitate to go toe to toe with Republicans in the debates to end the war as quickly and responsibly as possible."

Therein lies the catch. How does Clinton explain her commitment to quick and responsible withdrawal in the context of the short-term reduction of violence in Iraq achieved by the surge? How does she propose to rectify the admitted internal shortcomings inside Iraq, which she likens to near-civil war conditions, with her pledge for a "responsible" withdrawal? If one takes at face value the alleged successes of the surge, it is difficult to justify the embrace of an alternative policy option. Likewise, if one chooses to criticize the surge as all smoke and mirrors, as Clinton has, and yet argues for a quick and responsible end to the war in Iraq without revealing the details of how this would be accomplished, the rhetoric comes across as remarkably shallow.

I'm not one inclined to speak out in support of Hillary Clinton. She made her bed with Iraq, and she should now be forced to sleep in it. However, she is right that nothing the surge has accomplished so far remotely approaches a solution to these enormously destabilizing realities: a largely disaffected Sunni population which finds the current Shiite-dominated government of Iraq fundamentally unacceptable; a decisively fractured Shiite population torn between an Iranian-dominated government on the one hand (controlled by the political proxies of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, SCIRI, itself an Iranian proxy) or an indigenous firebrand, Muqtada al-Sadr; and a false paradise in Kurdistan, where the dream of an independent Kurdish homeland corrupts a viable Kurdish autonomy and threatens regional instability by provoking Turkish military intervention.

"Quickly and responsibly"? The problem with Clinton is that when it comes to Iraq, she is as shallow as the next candidate, and once one gets past her flowery rhetoric and protestations of expertise, it becomes crystal clear that she, like almost everyone else in the presidential race from either party, hasn't a clue about what is really happening on the ground in Iraq.

There are, in fact, five Iraqs that must be dealt with by a singular American policy. The first is the Iraq of the Green Zone, and by that I mean the Iraqi government brought about by the "purple finger revolution" of January 2005. Those sham elections produced a sham democracy which lacks any viability outside of the never-never land of the U.S.-controlled Green Zone. This lack of centralized authority has led some, like Sen. Joe Biden and the U.S. Senate, to advocate the division of Iraq into three de facto states, one Sunni, one Shiite and one Kurdish, lumped together in a loose federation overseen by a weak central authority. Given that the 2005 elections were designed to prevent this very sort of Iraqi breakup to begin with, one can begin to understand the fallacy of any policy that contradicts the very foundation upon which it is built. But this sort of behavior defines the entire Iraq fiasco, one contradiction built upon another, until there has been woven a web of contradictions from which no clarity can ever be found. That, in a sentence, is the reality of the current Iraqi government. It is almost as if by design the Bush administration has cobbled together a wreck incapable of governance. How does Hillary Clinton propose to deal "quickly and responsibly" with such a mess?

The second Iraq is the one being managed from Tehran. This Iraq, stretching from Basra in the south up into Baghdad, exists outside of the reach of the compromised disaster that is the current government of Iraq, and is instead dominated by SCIRI and its military wing, the Badr Brigade. Here one finds the unvarnished reality of the dream of the pro-Iranian Iraqi Shiites, those who reached political maturity festering in the anti-Saddam ideology cooked up in the theocracy of Iran. Given the roots of this political movement, bred and paid for by the reactionary mullahs of Iran, the politics of revenge that it embraces should come as no surprise. However, whereas the mullahs in Tehran seek long-term political stability guaranteed by a friendly, compliant government in Baghdad, the Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiites seem more focused on rapidly reversing decades of inequities, real and perceived. Revenge is not a policy that breeds stability, and yet it is the politics of revenge that dominates the mind-set of SCIRI.

Serving as a major domestic counterweight to SCIRI is the indigenous grass-roots Iraqi Shiite movement controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr, the third Iraq. Possessing similar geographic reach as SCIRI, the Iraq of the "Mahdi Army" is one which rejects the SCIRI proxy government operating out of the Green Zone as but a tool of the American occupation, and the SCIRI movement itself as a tool of Iran. While maintaining close relations with Tehran, al-Sadr mocks those who would govern in south Iraq as having Farsi, vice Arabic, as their first tongue. The movement headed by al-Sadr bases its credibility on its pure Iraqi roots, derived as it is from the Shiites of Iraq who actually lived under the rule of Saddam Hussein. Surprisingly, these Shiites are more inclined to find common cause with their fellow Iraqis, including Sunnis who are disaffected with the current government, than with their SCIRI co-religionists. While much has been made of the Sunni-Shiite divide, the fact is that one of the most serious threats to stability in Iraq is the emerging Shiite-versus-Shiite conflict between al-Sadr and SCIRI.

The fourth Iraq is the Iraq of the Sunni. The first three years of the American occupation were dominated by violence emanating from the Sunni heartland as those elements loyal to Saddam, and those opposed to Shiite domination, worked together to make the American occupation, and any affiliated post-Saddam government derived from the occupation, a failure. To this extent, elements of the Sunni of Iraq, drawn primarily from the intelligence services of the Hussein regime, facilitated the creation and operation of al-Qaida in Iraq. The work of this Iraqi al-Qaida has been successful in destabilizing the country to the point that the United States has been compelled to fund, equip and train Sunni militias in an effort to confront al-Qaida, as well as to make up for the real shortfalls of the central Iraqi government when it comes to security and stability in the Sunni areas. The newfound relationship between the Sunni and the United States, especially in Anbar province, is cited as a major factor in the success of the surge.

The fifth Iraq is that of the Kurds. Long hailed as a poster child of stability and prosperity, the fundamental problems inherent in post-Saddam Kurdistan are coming to a head. The inherent incompatibility between the "sanctuary" created by the United States through the northern "no-fly zone" and post-Saddam Iraq is more evident today than ever. The Kurds, pleased with their status as a "special case" in the eyes of the Bush administration, have made no honest effort to assimilate into a centralized system of government. Furthermore, the false dream of an independent Kurdish homeland has not only poisoned relations with the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad (witness the conflict over oil deals in Kurdistan and the Iraqi national oil law), but also between the U.S. and its NATO ally, Turkey. The Iraqi Kurds' ongoing support of Kurdish nationalist groups in Turkey and Iran has led to increased instability, the most current manifestation of which are the ongoing cross-border attacks into Iraqi territory by the Turkish military. And, given the high level of emotion attached to matters pertaining to Kurdish nationalism, the likelihood of the situation de-escalating anytime soon is remote.

Five Iraqs, and one Iraq policy ill-suited to the reality of any single situation, yet alone the whole. The success of the surge is pure fantasy, a fancy bit of illusion that would do David Copperfield proud, but not the people of Iraq or the United States. The surge addresses events in Iraq based upon short-term objectives (i.e., reducing the immediate level of violence) without resolving any of the deep-seated, long-term issues that promote the violence to begin with. It is like placing a Band-Aid on a gaping chest wound. The pink, frothy blood may not be visible on the surface, but the wound remains as grave as ever, and because it is not being directly attended to, it only gets worse. Eventually the lungs will collapse and the body will die. This is the reality of Iraq today. Thanks to the surge, we do not see the horrific wound that is Iraq for what it truly is. As such, our policies do nothing to cure the problem, and in doing nothing, only make the matter worse.

History will show that this period of relative "calm" we attribute to the surge is but the pause before the storm. Hillary Clinton is correct to label the surge a failed strategy. But her motivation for doing so rests more with her desire to position herself politically on the domestic front than it is a reflection of a thoughtful Iraq policy. So long as American politicians, regardless of political affiliation, seek to solve the problem of Iraq from a domestic political perspective, then the problem that is Iraq will never be resolved, either "quickly" or "responsibly." Iraq is an unpopular war. There are, therefore, no "popular" solutions, only realistic ones.

The five-dimensional problem embodied in post-Saddam Iraq cannot be bundled up into a neat package. America, and its leaders, must do the right thing in Iraq, not for Iraq, but for America, even when doing so requires making some tough decisions. Narrow the problem set from five dimensions to two, and the problem becomes more manageable. For my money, I choose working with the Sunnis and al-Sadr to create a viable coalition, and then cutting a deal with Iran that trades off better relations in exchange for encouraging the current failed Iraqi government to step aside in favor of new elections. And the Kurds? Autonomy or nothing.

My loyalty is first and foremost to the United States, and when we look at the situation in Iraq from a genuine national security perspective, there is no threat worthy of the continued sacrifice being asked of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. As such, the only policy option worthy of consideration is that which brings our troops home as expeditiously as possible. Politicians who embrace a different policy are simply using the sacrifice of our service members as a shield behind which to hide their ignorance of Iraqi issues, and their personal cowardice, which manifests itself any time brave young men and women are allowed to die in order to preserve someone's political viability.

As we in the United States celebrate this holiday season, let us not forget those who serve overseas in uniform, and the sacrifices they make in our name. And as we approach the coming election season, let us never forget those politicians who would have these sacrifices continue in order to safeguard their individual political fortune. This applies to all who seek the nomination for the office of the presidency, even those like Hillary Clinton who claim to embrace an anti-war position but whose words and actions strongly suggest something else.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20071230_the_five_iraqs/
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:11 am
Hillary is between a rock and a hard place; she can't seem to be weak on the war on terrorism. She says she wouldn't have voted for the war if she knew what she knows now, but her message is conflicting with her own position. I never did trust her. She's playing for votes; not ethics.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 03:42 pm
c.i. wrote :

Quote:
She's playing for votes; not ethics.


i understand being NUMBER 2 in the election doesn't count Shocked
hbg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 07:35 pm
revel wrote:
Quote:
Another 22,586-24,159 civilian deaths have been recorded in 2007 through Iraq Body Count's extensive monitoring of media and official reports. These figures, though undoubtedly incomplete, are the most comprehensive and well-established currently available, and show beyond any doubt that civil security in Iraq remains in a parlous state. Figures for the most recent months indicate that violence in Iraq has returned to the monthly levels IBC was recording in 2005, a year which was itself (until 2006) the worst since the invasion.


Civilian deaths from violence in 2007

Revel, I calculated the daily rates from the monthly figures supplied by your link. They are different from what I previously posted from IBC.
Quote:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2007/
IRAQ VIOLENT DEATHS
2006
Jan = 1423; 46 per day.
Feb = 1443; 52 per day.
Mar = 1764; 57 per day.
Apr = 1689; 56 per day.
May = 2083; 67 per day.
Jun = 2423; 81 per day.
Jul = 3127; 101 per day.
Aug = 2738; 88 per day.
Sep = 2396; 80 per day.
Oct = 2926; 94 per day.
Nov = 2963; 99 per day.
Dec = 2654; 85 per day.

2007
Jan = 2796; 90 per day.
Feb = 2465; 88 per day.
Mar = 2564; 83per day.
Apr = 2416; 81 per day.
May = 2731; 88 per day.
Surge fully operational in June
Jun = 2085; 70 per day.
Jul = 2531; 82 per day.
Aug = 2323; 72 per day.
Sep = 1220; 41 per day.
Oct = 1150; 37 per day.
Nov = 977; 33 per day.
Dec = 902; 29 per day*

*Preliminary figures.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 08:24 pm
hamburger wrote:
ican wrote :

Quote:
You guys keep bringing up the same 'ol sorosaisms for your arguments.


i don't quite understand what soros has to do with the invasion and occupation of iraq .
let's assume there would be no soros . in that case , would the united states NOT have invaded and occcupied iraq ?

soros must be a very mighty person , outstripping even president bush in wielding power in the united states and the world .
i find it kind of strange that one doesn't read or hear much of him in any news - does he perhaps control and suppress much of the newspapers and other newssources of the united states and the world ?
hbg - an unenlightened northerner .

The Sorosaian dogma is opposed to the Iraq war for the same reasons you here say you are opposed to the Iraq war. So you are in complete conformity with the Sorosaian dogma.

Basically, that dogma says that since 11 of the 23 reasons Congress gave for its authorization October 16, 2002 for invading Iraq were false, none of the 12 true reasons are sufficient for justifying the Iraq invasion. Furthermore, since northeastern Iraq was under one of the Coalition's no-fly zones, Saddam was prohibited, despite the USA's request, from going under that no-fly zone on the ground and removing al-Qaeda from that location.

The 12 true reasons (whereases) are quoted again below. Since I am convinced that the two whereases bold faced are sufficient reasons without the other 10 true reasons, they are my only reasons for invading Iraq. Furthermore, my decision was made independently of whatever George Bush thought, thinks, said, says, did or does.

CONGRESS'S WHEREASES FOR AUTHORIZING THE INVASION OF IRAQ
Of the 23 "Whereases" (i.e., Reasons) given by the USA Congress for its October 16, 2002 resolution, 11 were subsequently proven FALSE. The remaining 12 were subsequently proven TRUE. These true Whereases are sufficient to justify the USA invasion of Iraq, and are listed in the following quote:

Congress wrote:

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq[/u];

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens[/u];


Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now therefore be it, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.


Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 09/08/2006, wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 09:00 pm
ican, When will you ever get it through your brains that no country's politicians have the right to start a war with a sovereign country? It's illegal by international law.

Iraq was never a threat to the US; they didn't have the weapons or the means to deliver them to the continental US. They never threatened our security; they were in no position to threaten anyone. We had the no-fly zone, and contained Iraq's military.

We had UN weapon's inspectors to make sure Saddam didn't have WMDs. Bush chased them out to start his illegal war. He didn't have UN approval for the war.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 09:51 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, When will you ever get it through your brains that no country's politicians have the right to start a war with a sovereign country? It's illegal by international law.

Iraq was never a threat to the US; they didn't have the weapons or the means to deliver them to the continental US. They never threatened our security; they were in no position to threaten anyone. We had the no-fly zone, and contained Iraq's military.

We had UN weapon's inspectors to make sure Saddam didn't have WMDs. Bush chased them out to start his illegal war. He didn't have UN approval for the war.

When will you ever get it through and into your head and brain that the demonstrated kind of danger to us of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, was the same kind of danger to us of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Neither danger had a damn thing to do with no-fly zones, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, whether or not George Bush was legally elected president of the USA in 2000, or whether George Bush did or did not believe Saddam possessed WMD.

Our government rightly decided that rather than wait another five years for al-Qaeda in Iraq to hit us like al-Qaeda in Afghanistan did after five years in that country, we better take off our stupid blinders, drop our wishful thinking, and start doing what we can to eliminate that second threat before it materialized into another actual horrific attack.

There does not exist any international law whatsoever that makes our invasion of Iraq illegal. So drop the Sorosaisms and wise up ... if you can!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 10:37 pm
ican: When will you ever get it through and into your head and brain that the demonstrated kind of danger to us of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, was the same kind of danger to us of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Prove this statement? Not with your imagination, but with reliable sources.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 10:44 pm
Quote: "peacetime rights;7 rather, its subject is sovereign equality in the right to make war. Under the U.N. Charter ordaining the post-World War II international legal framework for the sovereign right to wage war, each of the 191 sovereign states has an equal right to make war for one of two reasons. First, a state may wage war in "individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs[.]"8 Second, a state may wage war if the U.N. Security Council determines "the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression"9 and authorizes war as "necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security."10
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 10:47 pm
The US was not attacked, and the UN did not authorize the Iraq war. Bush called the UN "irrelevant," because the Security Council refused to authorize the Iraq war.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 06:30 am
The violence may be down but its causes are still there.

From Juan Cole

Quote:
McClatchy reports on the dilemma of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis displaced from Baghdad to other Iraqi cities or abroad to Syria and Jordan. They are often facing straitened circumstances in their exile, but despite a reduction in violence in Baghdad, the situation is still not inviting in the capital. Plus, often somebody else is now living in their old home. Will the mostly Sunni Arab returnees have to fight hand to hand with the mostly Shiite squatters? Jamie Gumbrecht's article includes this important passage:


Quote:
' Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that goal would be difficult to meet, and he predicted violence as homeowners and squatters battle over property. Petraeus warned that some people will have to resign themselves to never being able to reclaim their homes.

"That is not ideal, not right, not legal, not a lot of things, but it is reality," he said last week. "This is just going to remain a very, very tough issue for some time."

Coalition forces will offer some aid, but Petraeus said he didn't have ground forces capable of organizing returns, settling property debates and maintaining safety. Those solutions will have to come from Iraqis, he said. '


The problem is that the government of PM Nuri al-Maliki is a Shiite government, and Sunni Arabs, at least, think it is complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from the capital. How likely is it that al-Maliki's security forces are going to bring Sunnis in large numbers back into, say, Shaab district, which used to be mixed? I hear something ominous in Gen. Petraeus's resignation here. A future ethnic war that the US might not be able to stop.

I can't imagine the Sunni Arabs, whether Iraqis or their coreligionists in the region, giving up on Baghdad and ceding it to the Shiites. So they are likely to organize over time to try to take it back. The oil monarchies of the Gulf are Sunni-ruled, and $100 a barrel petroleum gives them lots of resources with which to support the Iraqi Sunni Arabs. The US troop escalation had the accidental side effect of worsening the position of the Sunni Arabs for now, so that Baghdad must be 80% or so Shiite (way up from about 50/50 in 2003). As the US troops are drawn back down, the Sunni Arabs will come back. (Although the Iraqi government makes a big deal out of the returnees, in fact only a tiny number of people have come back, and some people are still leaving).

http://www.mcclatchydc.com:80/iraq/story/24012.html
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 07:30 am
In 2006; the violence rose to unimaginable levels in Iraq. We are now back up to the level of violence being reported in 2005 which is still very high.

For example the funeral suicide blast toll rises to 36. This was a funeral held for an Iraqi officer who was killed in a car blast last week.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 09:59 am
The invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. I dont know anyone who thinks differently now.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 03:39 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
The invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. I dont know anyone who thinks differently now.

The invasion of Iraq was NOT and is NOT illegal under international law. A state may wage war in individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs.

National self defense consists of preventing the continuation of an armed attack on a nation, and/or preventing the initiation of a subsequent armed attack on a nation.

An armed attack against a nation consists of an attack using a weapon or weapons on those attacked, whether owned by the attackers or stolen.

Al-Qaeda became based in Afghanistan May 19, 1996. An armed attack on the USA by al-Qaeda occurred September 11, 2001. The USA invaded Afghanistan October 7, 2001. Al-Qaeda began building its base in Iraq December 15, 2001. The USA invaded Iraq March 18, 2003.


I dont know anyone who thinks as opposed to merely believes differently now.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 04:07 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican: When will you ever get it through and into your head and brain that the demonstrated kind of danger to us of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, was the same kind of danger to us of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Prove this statement? Not with your imagination, but with reliable sources.

It's time for you to prove otherwise.

I've repeatedly provided the evidence you've requested. I'm sure if you try real hard you will remember Al-Qaeda's murder declarations both pre and post 9/11, and al-Qaeda's murders both pre and post 9/11.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 05:31 pm
The only people taking a crackpot's threat is another crackpot - like you!

Get over yourself; it's still a threat without much efficacy. You're in more danger driving around your home.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 07:03 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:

... it's still a threat without much efficacy. You're in more danger driving around your home.

It's a threat that had much efficacy until we finally decided to wage war against it to destroy its efficacy. Al-Qaeda's threat continues to have efficacy against others. And its efficacy will grow back against us if we fail to persist in our efforts to destroy its efficacy.

The evidence for all that is that al-Qaeda does do what it threatens to do when we don't stop it before it does do what it threatens to do.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 07:18 pm
ican, You continue to miss all the important FACTS about Bush's "war on terrorism." He has increased terrorism around the world ten-fold, and it's still "increasing," because of our occupation of Iraq - seen by Muslims as an intrusion by the US into an Arab country.
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 0.06 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 11:24:58