9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 06:56 am
In honor of MLK which eerily could be used today.

King on War and Peace


Quotes


Quote:
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 08:08 am
ican wrote:
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not part of the al-Qaeda confederation.


That's correct. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were not friends and did not trust one another. Saddam, a secular Muslim ruler, was something Osama, a religious fanatic, detested.

ican wrote:
USA's no-fly zone over northeastern Iraq protected al-Qaeda in Iraq.


George Bush protected the AQ camp in Kurd territory. That camp was to weak and small to warrant an attack on Iraq.

There's a new book out called "The Bush Tragedy" by Jacob Weisburg. The book itself is not impressive but the final paragraph of the book review is interesting;

Quote:
One of my favorite books about the war, George Packer's widely acclaimed The Assassins' Gate, also addresses the question of just why the United States invaded Iraq . Packer describes a telling exchange with Richard Haass, the State Department's director of policy planning at the time, who said he expects to go to his grave not knowing the reason. In the end, Packer writes, Haass seemed to believe it was just something some people wanted to do. *


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011702692.html

There were no good reasons to go to war but a lot were made up so we could invade Iraq. We see reasons being made up today so we can attack Iran. Some people never learn.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 10:41 am
revel wrote:
Quote:
I'll be back later!


We wait with breathless anticipation; after all what in the world would we have to discuss in this thread without you?

You are a troll and we are enablers.

http://curezone.com/forums/images/troll.jpg

He may not have the malicious intent of a true troll but in the end he has the same effect on this thread and we all just keep egging him on by responding to his ridiculous repetitive for the week(s) posts.

Laughing
Cool
Razz

Quote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Tonnya Long
To: ...
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:01 AM

Where Am I

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered altitude
and spotted a man on a sailboat below.

She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I
would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his sextant and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon
approximately 30 feet above above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97
minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."

She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the woman in the balloon, "everything you told me is
technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information,
and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "But how did yo u know?"

"Well," said the man, "You don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You've made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and now you expect ME to solve your problem. You're in EXACTLY the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now, it's MY fault."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 11:30 am
xingu wrote:
ican wrote:
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not part of the al-Qaeda confederation.


That's correct. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were not friends and did not trust one another. Saddam, a secular Muslim ruler, was something Osama, a religious fanatic, detested.

It is irrelevant whether or not Saddam Hussein was or was not friends with Osama, or whether or not Saddam Hussein did or did not detest Osama. What is relevant is whether or not a member of the al-Qaeda confederation was based in northeastern Iraq more than a year prior to the USA invasion of Iraq.

An al-Qaeda member of the al-Qaeda confederation was based in northeastern Iraq more than a year prior to the USA invasion of Iraq, whether or not Saddam approved or disapproved.


ican wrote:
USA's no-fly zone over northeastern Iraq protected al-Qaeda in Iraq.


George Bush protected the AQ camp in Kurd territory. That camp was to weak and small to warrant an attack on Iraq.

That is absurd! The no-fly zone over the al-Qaeda camp in northeastern Iraq was not a no-drive zone or no-march zone for Saddam or anyone else. It was strictly a no-fly zone for Saddam. Saddam was not permitted to fly his aircraft in no-fly zones. Nothing was ever said about Saddam not driving or not marching under no-fly zones.

When the USA invaded Iraq, it joined with Kurdish troops to drive al-Qaeda out of northeastern Iraq. Most of al-Qaeda that were not killed fled from there to Iran.


There's a new book out called "The Bush Tragedy" by Jacob Weisburg. The book itself is not impressive but the final paragraph of the book review is interesting;

Quote:
One of my favorite books about the war, George Packer's widely acclaimed The Assassins' Gate, also addresses the question of just why the United States invaded Iraq . Packer describes a telling exchange with Richard Haass, the State Department's director of policy planning at the time, who said he expects to go to his grave not knowing the reason. In the end, Packer writes, Haass seemed to believe it was just something some people wanted to do. *


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011702692.html

There were no good reasons to go to war but a lot were made up so we could invade Iraq. We see reasons being made up today so we can attack Iran. Some people never learn.

Two damn good reasons were given by the Congress in its October 16, 2002 resolution for invading Iraq. One was the fact that "al-Qaeda ... are known to be in Iraq." The other was that Saddam "continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations ... that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens."

It took al-Qaeda in Afghanistan less than five and a half years to grow from less than 100 terrorists to thousands and then perpetrate 9/11. How long would it have taken al-Qaeda in Iraq to grow from more than 200 terrorists to thousands and then perpetrate more 9/11s? Neither you or I know for certain. What we do know is that too many in the State Department were of the opinion that we should have continued the Clinton policies of watching al-Qaeda, while adhering to the strange belief that continuing to do what wasn't working (e.g., watching embassy bombings, watching an USA destroyer attack, watching al Qaeda grow to thousands) will eventually work to stop al-Qaeda terrorism.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 11:41 am
Okay, so the Iraq al qaida was not connected to Saddam, but was established in Iraq before the invasion.

Since the US (or rather Bush) took it upon himself to attack Iraq, why didn't Bush take care of those in the north? It is his responsibility is it not? Once anybody starts a war, you don't take responsibility for just parts of it, but in Bush's case, you ignore that important issue? When does a war consist of only parts of a country you go to war with?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 12:01 pm
revel wrote:
In honor of MLK which eerily could be used today.

King on War and Peace

Quotes

Quote:
I want to say one other challenge that we face is simply that we must find an alternative to war and bloodshed. Anyone who feels, and there are still a lot of people who feel that way, that war can solve the social problems facing mankind is sleeping through a great revolution. President Kennedy said on one occasion, "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind." The world must hear this. I pray to God that America will hear this before it is too late, because today we're fighting a war.

...

--Martin Luther King, Jr., Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution

Of course war does not itself solve social problems. It solves at most defence problems, if and only if victory is achieved. However, after victory solves the defence problems, we can then begin to solve the social problems that led to the war.

Yes, ending war is more desireable than continuing war. It is also true that making believe one can stop predators from waging war by counseling or negotiating or pleading or watching them without resisting them, is a childish fantasy. Yes, if everyone obeyed The Ten Commandments, life would be less frightening and less horrifying, and more pleasant for everyone. But all do not obey The Ten Commandments, and so far nothing that has been tried has gotten everyone to obey The Ten Commandments. Consequently, the threat of resort to war appears to be a constant factor in human relations. If that is true, then the best course for we who do obey the Ten Commandments is to maintain and practice an effective defence against those who don't.

I pray you can live with that as best you can.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 12:19 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Okay, so the Iraq al qaida was not connected to Saddam, but was established in Iraq before the invasion.

Since the US (or rather Bush) took it upon himself to attack Iraq, why didn't Bush take care of those in the north? It is his responsibility is it not? Once anybody starts a war, you don't take responsibility for just parts of it, but in Bush's case, you ignore that important issue? When does a war consist of only parts of a country you go to war with?

I think your grievance against George Bush's Iraq leadership is justified.

Indeed, why didn't Bush make the focus of the war effort in Iraq the elimination or extermination of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Iraq? That would have made far more sense to me than what Bush did.

I'm guessing that one reason was Bush wanted to stop Saddam from mass murdering Iraqi civilian non-murderers, even if Saddam did not currently possess WMD. All Bush has managed to accomplish so far is only a reduction of the rate of mass murders of civilian non-murderers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 01:21 pm
ican, I know you do not wish to acknowledge the simple fact that Iraqis are killing Iraqis. Our presence or absence will not change that scenario without the Saddams. He knew how to control the people of his country; Bush doesn't know anything.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 02:08 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, I know you do not wish to acknowledge the simple fact that Iraqis are killing Iraqis. Our presence or absence will not change that scenario without the Saddams. He knew how to control the people of his country; Bush doesn't know anything.

I do acknowledge the simple fact that Iraqis are killing Iraqis.
I have repeatedly acknowledged the simple fact that Iraqis are killing Iraqis.

Saddam's method of controling that scenario was to himself lead the killing of Iraqis by Iraqis. The only difference was Saddam was at least twice as effective at leading Iraqis killing Iraqis (about 240 per day), as has been post-Saddam Iraq leadership (about 120 per day). In recent months however, the post-Iraq leadership has reduced that number to 30 per day.

What do you want Bush to do? Do you want him to increase or decrease the daily rate at which Iraqis kill Iraqis?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 02:20 pm
ican711nm wrote:
The only difference was Saddam was at least twice as effective at leading Iraqis killing Iraqis (about 240 per day), as has been post-Saddam Iraq leadership (about 120 per day).


Didn't your earlier body counts amount to 140 per day under Saddam? Including the Iran-Iraq war, of course...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 04:06 pm
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
The only difference was Saddam was at least twice as effective at leading Iraqis killing Iraqis (about 240 per day), as has been post-Saddam Iraq leadership (about 120 per day).


Didn't your earlier body counts amount to 140 per day under Saddam? Including the Iran-Iraq war, of course...

Whoops! Sorry about that. The correct numbers are as follows:

From Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year, as of December 31, 2002, Total Iraq Violent Deaths since January 1, 1979 = 1,229,210.

From IBC http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ as of December 31, 2007, Total Iraq Violent Deaths since January 1, 2003 = 88,585.
___________________________________________________________________________

Daily Average, Iraq Violent Deaths, 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 - 12/31/2007 = 88,585/1,826 days = 49 per day;

PRE / POST = 140/49 = 2.9
.

___________________________________________________________________________

If the IBC numbers were half the true numbers then:

PRE = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/8,766 days = 140 per day;

POST = 1/1/2003 - 12/31/2007 = 177,170/1,826 days = 97 per day;

PRE / POST = 140/97 = 1.4
.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 04:55 pm
ican keeps posting the casualty rates in Iraq as if that's the only country in the world with violence and/or our concern. He ignores all the countries of Africa where military juntas are still killing and displacing thousands - many without drinking water and food.

HINT: It's not our responsibility to bring democracy to other countries of this world. We represent only five percent of the world population; the logistics alone says it's impossible. We're already in economic trouble - facing a recession of undeterminable length; how much more suffering does ican expect from the American people to satisfy the misguided war in Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 05:08 pm
C I
as a strong upholder of nonviolence and a consummate critic of injustice I am agonized with the barbaric politics emanated by BUSH's USA.
If i were a citizen of Iraq I would have commited suicide out of protest than seeing the criminals behaviour.
By criminal i mean the people who had embedded with Sadam and the people who are vegitating with the justification of this barbaric war.
When I surf in Internet and use google most of the threads are about the harmless innocent American GIs but not about the innocent Iraq citizens.
after this election the world will join together to chase away the uninvited barbarians
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 05:16 pm
Rama, That's one of the biggest problem with the war in Iraq; most Americans are immune to the death and suffering of the very people we're supposed to be helping. One American life is worth several thousand innocent Iraqis - and that's a low estimate. ican will never see it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 05:19 pm
Most Americans are now talking about the "real" progress our trooops are making in Iraq; violence are at new lows. However, there are no guarantees; it's only wishful thinking. Without a viable Iraqi government, there is no hope that the violence will cease any time soon. No country can provide security without having a strong government; missing from Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 05:25 pm
C I
I am not alone with my critical views.
atleast 6 Americans here in Köln subscribe my emotions.
Sorry.
Vote not a barbaric system upoholder nor those who preach sermon about the holy mission of Corporate USA.
Any fool can be a successor of BUSH .
But none can win the admiration of the innocent poor.
Sorry sir.
Rama
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 06:40 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican keeps posting the casualty rates in Iraq as if that's the only country in the world with violence and/or our concern. He ignores all the countries of Africa where military juntas are still killing and displacing thousands - many without drinking water and food.
...

Let me help you better understand the obvious.

The topic of this thread is "The US, The UN and Iraq." So in this thread I naturally focus my attention on the US, the UN, and Iraq.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 06:47 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican keeps posting the casualty rates in Iraq as if that's the only country in the world with violence and/or our concern. He ignores all the countries of Africa where military juntas are still killing and displacing thousands - many without drinking water and food.

HINT: It's not our responsibility to bring democracy to other countries of this world. We represent only five percent of the world population; the logistics alone says it's impossible. We're already in economic trouble - facing a recession of undeterminable length; how much more suffering does ican expect from the American people to satisfy the misguided war in Iraq?


If its not our responsibility, why did you mention those other countries?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 06:19 am
Quote:
If its not our responsibility, why did you mention those other countries?

He mentioned those other countries as an illustration of all the trouble in the world which deserved our attention more than Iraq did when we invaded it if we invaded it to bring freedom and democracy to Iraqis which was one among a dozen reasons which kept evolving as each reason went to dust.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 06:32 am
Suicide bomber kills one, injures 20 at Iraq school

Quote:
Baghdad - A suicide bomber wearing an explosive belt attacked a school in the Iraqi city of Baquba early on Tuesday, killing its guard and injuring 20 students and teachers, according to witnesses.

The bomber blew himself up as students were entering a high school in the centre of Baquba, 60 kilometres north-east of Baghdad, the witnesses said.

This attack comes a day after another suicide bomber killed at least 17 people and injured 20 at a mourning ceremony in the village of Hajaj near the northern Iraqi city of Bayji in the province of Salahaddin.

The deputy governor of the province in charge of security, Gen Ahmed Abdallah, and a member of the a tribal police unit known as the Awakening Council, Hamad Ibrahim, escaped unharmed. Both might have been the target of the Bayji bombing.


IRAQ: Iraq toll mounts as forces fight cult

Quote:


FACTBOX-Security developments in Iraq, Jan 21

Quote:

* BAIJI - A suicide bomber killed 15 people and wounded 10 when he blew himself up among mourners at a funeral for a tribal leader in a village near the northern oil refinery city of Baiji, security officials said.

QAIYARA - Two people were killed and nine wounded by a bomb in a parked car targeting an Iraqi army patrol in the town of Qaiyara near Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - U.S. forces killed two gunmen and arrested 18 others during operations in central and northern Iraq, the U.S. military said.

BAGHDAD - Iraqi special forces soldiers, backed by U.S. advisers, killed the suspected commander of 10 extremist groups implicated in attacks against Iraqi security forces and civilians in Baghdad, the U.S. military said. The man tried to grab a weapon when special forces entered a building in southwestern Baghdad's al-Amil district, it said. The man's son and neighbours said the man was shot when he tried to stop the soldiers from entering his wife's bedroom.

NEAR FALLUJA - Gunmen killed four members of a U.S.-backed neighbourhood police patrol and wounded two others in an attack on a checkpoint near Falluja, 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad, police said. Two of the gunmen were killed when police at the checkpoint returned fire.

BAGHDAD - Three people were wounded by a roadside bomb which exploded after a U.S. patrol went by in eastern Baghdad's Baladiyat district, police said.

BAGHDAD - Two bodies were found in different areas of Baghdad on Sunday, police said.

ANBAR PROVINCE - A U.S. Marine was killed during combat operations in western Anbar province on Saturday, the U.S. military said.

BAGHDAD - One U.S. soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in Arab Jabour on Baghdad's southern outskirts, the U.S. military said.

BAGHDAD - U.S. military aircraft hit more than 30 targets with 35 bombs weighing a total of 19,000 pounds in air strikes in Arab Jabour, the U.S. military said.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 09:27:07