9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jan, 2008 11:56 am
Here's another inconsistency: if Franks knew al Qaida was in Norhtern Iraq, it was his responsibility to get rid of them. Why didn't he?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2008 08:03 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Here's another inconsistency: if Franks knew al Qaida was in Norhtern Iraq, it was his responsibility to get rid of them. Why didn't he?


Probably because they were too busy guarding the oil wells; it was the only they protected. They sure didn't do anything about the looting or anything else.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2008 11:57 am
Yeah, they were so worried about the oil wells, the terrorists were able to get their hands on all those munitions that was later used against our soldiers to kill and maim.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2008 10:53 am
Return to Fallujah
Three years after the devastating US assault, our correspondent enters besieged Iraqi city left without clean water, electricity and medicine
by Patrick Cockburn
Monday, 28 January 2008


Fallujah is more difficult to enter than any city in the world. On the road from Baghdad I counted 27 checkpoints, all manned by well-armed soldiers and police. "The siege is total," says Dr Kamal in Fallujah Hospital as he grimly lists his needs, which include everything from drugs and oxygen to electricity and clean water.


The last time I tried to drive to Fallujah, several years ago, I was caught in the ambush of an American fuel convoy and had to crawl out of the car and lie beside the road with the driver while US soldiers and guerrillas exchanged gunfire. The road is now much safer but nobody is allowed to enter Fallujah who does not come from there and can prove it through elaborate identity documents. The city has been sealed off since November 2004 when United States Marines stormed it in an attack that left much of the city in ruins.

Its streets, with walls pock-marked with bullets and buildings reduced to a heap of concrete slabs, still look as if the fighting had finished only a few weeks ago.

I went to look at the old bridge over the Euphrates from whose steel girders Fallujans had hanged the burnt bodies of two American private security men killed by guerrillas - the incident that sparked the first battle of Fallujah. The single-lane bridge is still there, overlooked by the remains of a bombed or shelled building whose smashed roof overhangs the street and concrete slabs are held in place by rusty iron mesh.

The police chief of Fallujah, Colonel Feisal Ismail Hassan al-Zubai, was trying to show that his city was on the mend.

As we looked at the bridge a small crowd gathered and an elderly man in a brown coat shouted: "We have no electricity, we have no water."

Others confirmed that Fallujah was getting one hour's electricity a day. Colonel Feisal said there was not much he could do about the water or electricity though he did promise a man that a fence of razor wire outside his restaurant would be removed.

Fallujah may be better than it was, but it still has a very long way to go. Hospital doctors confirm that they are receiving few gunshot or bomb blast victims since the Awakening movement drove al-Qa'ida from the city over the past six months, but people still walk warily in the streets as if they expected firing to break out at any minute.

Colonel Feisal, a former officer in Saddam Hussein's Special Forces, cheerfully admits that before he was chief of police, "I was fighting the Americans". His brother Abu Marouf, a former guerrilla commander, controls 13,000 fighters of the anti-al-Qa'ida Awakening movement in and around Fallujah. The colonel stressed that the streets of Fallujah were now wholly safe but his convoy drove at speed and was led by a policeman, his face hidden by a white balaclava, on top of a vehicle holding a machine gun and frantically gesturing oncoming vehicles out of the way.

The police station is large and protected by concrete and earth barriers. Just as we reached the inner courtyard we saw signs that the battle against al-Qa'ida may be over but arrests go on. From another part of the police station there emerged a line of 20 prisoners, each with his eyes covered by a white blindfold, gripping the back of the clothes of the prisoner in front of him. The prisoners reminded me of photographs of men blinded by gas in the First World War stumbling along behind a single man who could see and who, in this case, was a prison guard.

There are new buildings in the main street. I used to eat at a kebab restaurant called Haji Hussein, which was one of the best in Iraq. Then, as the occupation went on, I started attracting a lot of hostile stares. The manager suggested it might be safer if I ate upstairs in an empty room, and soon after it was destroyed by an American bomb. It has now been rebuilt in gaudy colours and seemed to be doing good business.

At one time Fallujah had a population of 600,000, but none of the officials in the city seemed to know how many there are now. Col Feisal is hopeful of investment and took us to a white, new building called the Fallujah Business Development Centre, which had been partly funded by a branch of the US State Department. Tall American soldiers were guarding a business development conference. "It has attracted one American investor so far," said a uniformed American adviser hopefully. "My name is Sarah and I am in psychological operations," said another US officer and proudly showed us around a newly established radio Fallujah.

At the other end of the city we crossed over the iron bridge built in about 1930 and now the only link with the far side of the Euphrates. There is a modern bridge half a mile down river but it has been taken over by the American army and, say locals, used as a vehicle park. On the far side of the bridge, past beds of tall bullrushes where people escaping the city during the sieges of 2004 tried to hide, there is a building eviscerated by bombs on one side of the road. On the other side is the hospital whose officials US commanders used to accuse of systematically exaggerating the number of those killed by American bombing.

When I asked what the hospital lacked Dr Kamal said wearily: "Drugs, fuel, electricity, generators, a water treatment system, oxygen and medical equipment." It was difficult not to think that American assistance might have gone to the hospital rather than the business development centre.

Colonel Feisal said things were getting better but he was mobbed by black-clad women shouting that their children had not been treated.

"Every day 20 children die here," said one. "Seven in this very room."

The doctors said that they were tending their patients as best they could. "The Americans provide us with nothing," said one mother who was cradling a child. "They bring us only destruction."
link
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2008 11:14 am
That's what upsets me to no end; children are starving and dying, and all this administration pushes is that "violence is down." It's pretty sad that the American People doesn't take up arms and tell Bush and his criminals all this must end soon; instead of guns and tanks, they need food, water, medical care, and electricity.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2008 11:16 am
5 US soldiers killed in northern Iraq

Quote:
BAGHDAD - Five American soldiers were killed Monday in a complex attack in the northern city of Mosul, described as one of al-Qaida in Iraq's last strongholds, just days after a house explosion and suicide attack killed as many as 60 people there.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2008 06:48 pm
Pity
Pathetic
primitive
politics
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2008 07:32 pm
revel, That's how this war has been promoted to the American People; American soldiers lives are important when one or five gets killed, but none of the thousands of children dying makes the news.

Pathetic.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2008 08:27 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Your 'proof' is bullsh*t, Ican. Nothing more then opinion and rumor.

Cycloptichorn

Your assertion is malarky, Cyclop

My evidence--not proof--shows that al-Qaeda was in northeast Iraq more than a year and growing before we invaded Iraq.

By the way, I respect the allegation of General Franks who was there in Iraq in 2003 when the al-Qaeda in northeastern Iraq was engaged by the Kirds and our troops. I do not respect your opinion about anything since your Lancet debacle.


The respect of fools means little to me.

Tommy Franks presided over a gigantic f*ck-up in Iraq, yet you respect him? That's a debacle that far outweighs anything I could possibly do Laughing

Cycloptichorn

General Franks succeeded in doing his job. He succeeded well. He led the conquering of Iraq and the removal of its mass murdering government in less than a month. He then retired.

What followed was not led by General Franks.

I agree that you are totally incapable of achieving such a f*ck-up.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2008 08:33 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
That's what upsets me to no end; children are starving and dying, and all this administration pushes is that "violence is down." It's pretty sad that the American People doesn't take up arms and tell Bush and his criminals all this must end soon; instead of guns and tanks, they need food, water, medical care, and electricity.

The responsibility for all this evil being perpetrated against the Iraqi people does not belong to those trying to stop the mass murder of Iraqi civilian non-murderers. The responsibility for all this evil belongs to all those mass murderers of Iraqi civilian non-murderers, plus those tolerating the existence of these mass murderers among them.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2008 08:37 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Here's another inconsistency: if Franks knew al Qaida was in Norhtern Iraq, it was his responsibility to get rid of them. Why didn't he?

He did get rid of them. Those that weren't killed or taken prisoner fled to Iran. After General Franks retired, his successors failed to keep those that fled from returning.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2008 08:42 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
The respect of fools means little to me.
...
Cycloptichorn

The respect of fools appears to mean a great deal to you. Why else would you continue to seek the respect of fools by thinking and acting just like they do?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 07:39 am
Ican you remain forever clueless.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 08:38 am
From Juan Cole about Bush's State of the Union address with regards to Iraq , terrorism and Afghanistan.

Quote:
Bush assertion: "And so, in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions and empower them to improve their lives for their futures."

Sad fact: Amit Paley writes, "A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout . . ."

Bush assertion: "We've seen Afghans emerge from the tyranny of the Taliban and choose a new president and a new parliament."

Sad fact: "Afghanistan Journalist sentenced to Death for Blasphemy" and I don't think women would agree with Bush's rosy picture of progressive democracy in Kabul. Not to mention that half the country's gross domestic product is generated by the heroin trade. Bush goes on to say that his democratic projects are only being interrupted by terrorists; but all the problems above are problems with the establishment, not with terror groups.

Bush assertion: "From expanding opportunity to protecting our country, we've made good progress."

Sad fact: Bush's Iraq is a major generator of terrorism, which it was not before 2003. "Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the prime training ground for foreign terrorists who could travel elsewhere across the globe and wreak havoc, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials and classified studies" by the CIA and the Department of State, Warren P. Strobel reported July 4, 2005. "Iraq's emergence as a terrorist training ground appears to challenge President Bush's rationale for invading and overthrowing leader Saddam Hussein in March 2003," Strobel wrote." So we are safer how again?

Bush assertion: "We launched a surge of American forces into Iraq. We gave our troops a new mission: Work with the Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pursue the enemy in his strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country."

Sad fact: "The Iraqi Red Crescent Organization and the U.N. reported last month that the "number of Iraqis fleeing their homes has soared since the American troop increase began in February. . . The chart reports some decreases in the intensity of "ethno-sectarian violence" in certain Baghdad districts (Note: This is based on military data). But where there have been decreases, they are due largely to the fact that "mixed Muslim" areas are being overrun by either Shia or Sunni enclaves.The map above demonstrates that Shias have been gradually taking over all of Baghdad (noted by the green mass that now covers much of the city), wiping out Sunni communities that stood in their path. Center for American Progress analyst Brian Katulis estimated that Baghdad, which once used to be a 65 percent Sunni majority city, is now 75 percent Shia."

A large proportion of the 1.5 million Iraqi refugees in Damascus was displaced to Syria during 2007, apparently as a side effect of Bush's troop surge.

So all this involves "protecting the Iraqi people" how, exactly? Does Bush think Iraqis are safer when they are refugees in a foreign country?

He won't be missed.


Juan gives sources for his statements. To see them go to his website and see the Jan. 29 entry.

http://juancole.com/
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 11:31 am
What galled me more about Bush's SOT was his rhetoric about "listening to the American People, because we are a generous and kind people." Since when did Bush listen to the American People? The majority wants out of Iraq, or maybe, he's deaf and dumb.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 11:32 am
In additionn to all that, the congress of the US applauded Bush for his non-accomplishments. They're all stupid!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 02:10 pm
revel wrote:
Ican you remain forever clueless.

Very Happy I'm ecstatic that I do not meet your test for being clueful.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 03:18 pm
C I
You had said" they are all stupid".

(In additionn to all that, the congress of the US applauded Bush for his non-accomplishments. They're all stupid!)

I don't think so.

I am of the opinion that there are some in USA who still adore, admire, apprciate personalities like BuSH .
Is it not marvellous , astounding , amazing , astonishing , incredible , unbelievable , terrific , stupendous?

“The occupation of Iraq, still illegal and immoral by any sense of human understanding, has now run into its fourth bloody and horrific year, becoming a quagmire for America and a vast killing field for Iraqis. Indeed, for Iraqis, America’s invasion and subsequent occupation has been and will continue to be one massive war crime, an onslaught of criminality against humanity not seen since World War Two. It is they, the Iraqi people, who have undergone tremendous hardship, and it is they who will continue to suffer in horrific ways, due to the lunacy and delusions of America’s miscreant leaders. Indeed, hell on Earth has been imported into Iraq without so much as a care, concern or bother from the American people, without so much as a protest or two by the world entire.

For America and her people, on the other hand, to say that the Iraq debacle is the greatest strategic disaster in American foreign policy history is an understatement, for the implications of America’s defeat at the hands of Iraqis have only now begun to be seen, with its reverberations to be felt for years to come. What was once considered a cakewalk by an arrogant nation, basking in the glory of exceptionalism and ignorance, blinded to reality by addictions to materialism and televised charades, instead turned into an inextricable sand trap that threatens to turn a New American Century into the Last American Decade.”
http://valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com/2007/05/operation-iraq-forever.html
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 05:57 pm
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 actual 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
.
___________________________________________________________________________

Now, Ramafuchs, try real hard to truthfully answer the following questions for yourself.

Who were the killers of Iraqis pre 1/1/2003, and who among them killed the most Iraqis?

Who were the killers of Iraqis post 12/31/2002, and who among them killed the most Iraqis?
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 06:08 pm
Ican
with high respect and due regard may i humbly request you to wait for a while ( few days) to pour forth my views about this barbaric unprovoked criminal iraq war?
Await please.
Quote not Encyclo Brit.( mine is 1996).
Irrespective of our intellectual inadequacies let us uphold the rare product which is called TRUTH.
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 0.05 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 03:24:46