THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Occupations are always to take over a countrys resources. We have long history in the middle east. In fact we trained the people were fighting.

------------------------------------------------

In the 1920s, American and European oil companies discovered and exploited the first oil fields in the Middle East. But World War II changed everything. Despite being victors, both France and England began to lose control of their former colonies. The Middle Eastern nations recognized their potential to become economic world players through their oil. Many of them?-much to the chagrin of London, Paris, and Washington?-attempted to nationalize their oil reserves, only to have the West retaliate.

http://www.greens.org/s-r/30/30-03.html

0 Replies

before i go to bed let me give a link to peruse.
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

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.

If I understand you correctly, you are requesting that I not respond to any of your posts about the USA invasion of Iraq until you complete your argument that the USA invasion of Iraq was a "barbaric unprovoked criminal" act. And you make this request in the name of upholding "the rare product which is called TRUTH."

I'm intrigued by the uniqueness of your request. I shall comply with your request until whichever comes first: Saturday; or you post you have completed pouring forth your views on this topic. At either time I shall repeat my last post and expect a truthful relevant response to it from you.

0 Replies

Saddam was a cruel dictator but he was contained and posed no threat to our security in the US or any urgent threats to any nearby neighbors. It was not good under Saddam Hussein; but it not good not now and that is the point when people like me post incidents of violence and other bad news from Iraq. The AQ presence in Iraq was insignificant and posed no more and less than other places where there is an AQ presence. (Do not want to argue that point with you Ican as we have been there and done a thousand times)

There was no reason to attack and attacking and invading and occupying has not improved the lives of Iraqis in terms of quality of life or life itself. I don't see things improving and I see no answers other than just containing the violence slightly which is all we have doing with this "surge".

Meanwhile; Iraqis continue to have horrible security and horrible quality of life and our troops continue to be in harms way to die for no cause and our economy continues to get sucked dry.

We cannot continue this effort for the 100 or so years McCain talks about for two reasons: number one we can't sustain our military strength we need for other needs and it sucks our economy dry in one source and the other reason is that even after 100 years things might not be in any better shape; probably worse because people get tired of being owned which is the result of "you broke you own it" reason to stay. Even if not all them get tired of it; they have to at some point if they want to have a viable country, take their independence into their own hands. That is something we can't do for them or it won't be their independence but just a colony of the US.

Example of violence continuing which only illustrates the futile effort this is and always has been:

Severed heads and bodies found in Iraq field

0 Replies

So Much for the 'Exit Strategy' in Iraq
So Much for the 'Exit Strategy' in Iraq
E & P January 29, 2008
AP WASHINGTON

The Bush administration is sending strong signals that U.S. troop reductions in Iraq will slow or stop altogether this summer, a move that would jeopardize hopes of relieving strain on the Army and Marine Corps and revive debate over an open-ended U.S. commitment in Iraq.

The indications of a likely slowdown reflect concern by U.S. commanders that the improvement in security in Iraq since June ?- to a degree few had predicted when President Bush ordered five more Army brigades to Iraq a year ago ?- is tenuous and could be reversed if the extra troops come out too soon.

One of those extra brigades left in December, and the other four are due to come out by July, leaving 15 brigades, or roughly 130,000 to 135,000 troops ?- the same number as before Bush sent the reinforcements.

[A New York Times story for Wednesday's edition opens: "Four months after announcing troop reductions in Iraq, President Bush is now sending signals that the cuts may not continue past this summer, a development likely to infuriate Democrats and renew concerns among military planners about strains on the force."]

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is scheduled to report to the president and to Congress in April on possible additional cutbacks and any recommended changes in strategy. Petraeus recently said it would be prudent to "let things settle a bit" after the current round of troop cuts is completed in July before deciding whether and when to reduce further.

Majority Democrats in Congress have pressed unsuccessfully to wind down the war quickly, in part out of concern that more firepower should be transferred to Afghanistan, where the security situation has deteriorated. Reluctance by Bush to continue the troop drawdown beyond July is likely to trigger a new round of conflict with the antiwar Democrats, especially with the November elections looming.

Petraeus seems at this point to be inclined to declare a pause in troop reductions after July, although no decisions have been made and there are competing pressures from within the Pentagon. The Army in particular wants additional reductions to enable it to shorten Iraq tours from 15 months to 12 months. The longer tours are among pressures that Army leaders fear could break the force.

Petraeus speaks regularly with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other administration officials to keep them informed of his thinking, although he has not yet made a recommendation to Bush. A senior administration official said Petraeus has made clear he is "concerned about a rush to 10" ?- a reference to the 10-brigade force level that some administration officials see as an attractive target to hit by the time Bush leaves the White House a year from now.

The administration official said "it really is not determined" yet whether conditions in Iraq will permit further cutbacks. The official briefed reporters last week at the White House on condition of anonymity.

With months to go before a decision has to be made about troop reductions in the second half of the year, it is possible that circumstances in Iraq will change, for better or for worse, in ways that cannot be foreseen. Thus Petraeus is likely to want as much time as possible before committing himself.

The first sign Bush might endorse a pause in troop reductions came earlier this month when he recounted for reporters his meeting with Petraeus in Kuwait on Jan. 12.

0 Replies

Bush waives ban on permanent Iraq basis in signing statement
Bush Issues Signing Statement On Defense Act, Waiving Ban On Permanent Bases In Iraq

President Bush yesterday signed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act after initially rejecting Congress's first version because it would have allegedly opened the Iraqi government to "expensive lawsuits."

Even though he forced Congress to change its original bill, Bush's signature yesterday came with a little-noticed signing statement, claiming that provisions in the law "could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations." CQ reports on the provisions Bush plans to disregard:

One such provision sets up a commission to probe contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another expands protections for whistleblowers who work for government contractors. A third requires that U.S. intelligence agencies promptly respond to congressional requests for documents. And a fourth bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq and for any action that exercises U.S. control over Iraq's oil money.

In his "Memorandum of Justification" for the waiver, Bush cited his Nov. 26 "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship" between Iraq and the United States. This agreement has been aggressively opposed by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress as not only unprecedented, but also potentially unconstitutional because it was enacted without the agreement of the legislation branch.

Today on CNN, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) voiced concern that this declaration may indefinitely commit U.S. troops to fighting Iraq's civil wars:

Involved in those declaration of principles, there is an implicit potential for the United States military forces, years from now, being involved in a full-blown civil war in Iraq. And I don't believe that's where the American people want us and I don't think that's in the best interest of our national security.

Earlier this month, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced legislation requiring the Bush administration "to consult with Congress before moving forward with any agreement that could lead to long term security arrangements and other major economic and political commitments."

Throughout his presidency, Bush has issued more than 151 signing statements challenging 1149 provisions of laws.

0 Replies

i've asked our library to order EDWIN BLACK'S : BANKING ON BAGHDAD.
it should provide some more inside into both the history of baghdad and iraq and also set it into the present time frame .
after having read THE CARPET WARS , i think it will help me gain a better understanding of the middle-east and its people .
hbg

from the book review :

Quote:

Every hour spent reading Banking on Baghdad will be well rewarded. The historical detail is fascinating; Edwin Black's mastery of it reads like a detective story and thriller combined, and the relevance of the past has seldom been so graphically portrayed. This is a gripping exposé of historic follies, fantasies and ferocity, taking place in a region that is today still a focus and storm center as it has so often been. Oil forms a twisting thread of wealth, corruption and greed. The cast of characters and their bizarre behavior could come out of a novel; but this is fact not fiction, more endlessly intriguing and absorbing than any novel could be.

Sir Martin Gilbert author of Churchill: a Life, Israel: A History,
First World War, and Second World War

In Banking on Baghdad, New York Times and international bestselling author Edwin Black chronicles the dramatic and tragic history of a land long the center of world commerce and conflict. Tracing the involvement of Western governments and militaries, as well as oil, banking, and other corporate interests, Black pinpoints why today, just as throughout modern history, the world needs Iraq's resources-and remains determined to acquire and protect them. Banking on Baghdad almost painfully documents the many ways Iraq's recent history mirrors its tumultuous past.

Banking on Baghdad is the first history of Iraq presented in a global context. Woven through the boardrooms and war rooms of London, Paris, Berlin, Istanbul, Washington, and the other centers that set the agenda for its tragic history, Black has pieced together the corporate hegemony, oil politics, religious extremism, Nazi alliances, and intersecting global upheaval--all with a compelling, contemporary perspective.

Now, with foreign troops once more occupying the "cradle of civilization," Banking on Baghdad gives us the opportunity to consider the present and future of Iraq through the lens of its complicated and turbulent history. While demonstrating that Iraq's tribal, religious, and political turmoil has combined to punish the nation, Black does not shy away from the uncomfortable truth that foreign governments--including our own--have played a defining role in creating the Iraq we know today. With his trademark mix of deeply mined history and investigative journalism, Black documents a long record of war profiteering in Iraq and takes a hard look at the corporations currently doing business there. With access to numerous oil company archives, the papers of a half dozen governments, and numerous other primary sources yielding some 50,000 documents gathered by an international team of some 30 researchers, Banking on Baghdad promises to tell a monumental story 7,000 years in the making. Banking on Baghdad has been nominated for the Pulitzer Prize.

Vivid characters bring Banking on Baghdad to life. The followers of Islam consumed Iraq as the epicenter of a struggle between the minority Shiites and the Sunnis. The Mongol chieftain Hulagu utterly destroyed Iraq, but its remnant later came back to life. Winston Churchill solidly set the course of British petropolitics and military oil dependence on a collision course with Iraq and Iran, as the government-controlled company that became British Petroleum literally invented the geopolitical Middle East. During World War I, the British invaded Iraq for the oil they knew one day would be indispensable to all industry and militaries. C. S. Gulbenkian, the legendary Mr. Five Percent, through intrigue and high-drama created the Red Line Agreement monopoly, dividing Iraq's fabulous oil wealth between British, American, and French cartels. The Hashemites, from Sharif Hussein and King Faisal to his brutally-murdered progeny, fought alongside Lawrence of Arabia to achieve independence in Syria, but were given Iraq instead; in consequence the Arabs aborted a planned peaceful co-existence with Israel. The Mufti of Jerusalem, in his war against Zionism, using Iraq's oil and strategic location as bait, sealed an alliance with Hitler during World War II and lead a pro-Reich coup in Baghdad met by a British invasion to oust it. The post-World War II Ba'ath predecessors of Saddam Hussein ravaged Iraq's minorities and paved the way for the recently-deposed tyrant.

After Banking on Baghdad, no reader will ever see Iraq the same.

source :
BANKING ON BAGHDAD

0 Replies

The Top 100 Private Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan
Baghdad Bonanza
The Top 100 Private Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan
By Bill Buzenberg - Center for Public Integrity
Senior Database Fellow John Perry provided data analysis for this story.
Complete report list: http://www.publicintegrity.org/WOWII/

KBR, Inc., the global engineering and construction giant, won more than $16 billion in U.S. government contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004 to 2006?-far more than any other company, according to a new analysis by the Center for Public Integrity. In fact, the total dollar value of contracts that went to KBR?-which used to be known as Kellogg, Brown, and Root and until April 2007 was a subsidiary of Halliburton?-was nearly nine times greater than those awarded to DynCorp International, a private security firm that is No. 2 on the Center's list of the top 100 recipients of Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction funds.

Another private security company, Blackwater USA, whose employees recently killed as many as 17 Iraqi civilians in what the Iraqi government alleges was an unprovoked attack, is 12th on the list of companies and joint ventures, with $485 million in contracts. (On November 14, the New York Times reported that FBI investigators have concluded that 14 of the 17 shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, and that Justice Department prosecutors are weighing whether to seek indictments.) First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting, which immediately precedes Blackwater on the Top 100, came under fire in July after a pair of whistleblowers told a House committee that the company essentially "kidnapped" low-paid foreign laborers brought in to help build the new U.S. embassy in Baghdad. First Kuwaiti and the U.S. State Department denied the charges.

Other key findings from the Center's analysis:

Over the three years studied, more than $20 billion in contracts went to foreign companies whose identities?-at least so far?-are impossible to determine.

Nearly a third of the companies and joint ventures on the Top 100 are based outside the United States. These foreign contractors, along with the $20 billion in contracts awarded to the unidentified companies, account for about 45 percent of all funds obligated to the Top 100.

U.S. government contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan have grown more than 50 percent annually, from $11 billion in 2004 to almost $17 billion in 2005 and more than $25 billion in 2006.

According to David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, the outsourcing of government has escalated across the board over the past five years, although oversight of the process has shrunk during this same period. In an interview with the Center for Public Integrity, Walker noted particular problems with military contracting. "We have identified about 15 systemic, longstanding acquisition and contracting problems that exist within the Defense Department?-which is the single biggest contractor within the U.S. government?-that we are still not making enough progress on," said Walker, who heads the Government Accountability Office. "I mean, this stuff isn't rocket science."

While KBR earns the top spot among individual companies and their subsidiaries, the firm's $16 billion in obligated contracts is eclipsed by $20.4 billion in contracts that went to a nebulous collection of companies identified by the U.S. government only as "foreign contractors." The Center has filed a Freedom of Information request for the 50 largest contracts?-collectively worth some $19.6 billion?-awarded to these unnamed companies. The largest of these contracts is worth more than $6 billion?-a sum that would catapult the unidentified recipient to the No. 2 spot on the Top 100.

In October 2003, when the Center published "Windfalls of War," Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown, and Root was also the top recipient of U.S. government contracts for the postwar effort, with more than $2.3 billion in awards over two years (see the story here). By contrast, Bechtel, the only other company on that 2003 roster to have received more than $1 billion in awards, won a second large contract in January 2004?-this one for $1.8 billion?-but left Iraq after completing its work in March 2007. Since this Top 100 represents contracts newly awarded in fiscal years 2004 to 2006, Bechtel is not on the list.

When the 2003 study was published, federal agencies did not comprehensively distinguish war contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan from other government contracts; therefore, Center researchers had to flush out these contracts one by one. Since then, however, most such contracts list Iraq or Afghanistan as their "place of performance," making the contracting process more transparent and the search for data?-available from the General Service Administration's Federal Procurement Data System?-more methodical.

But not all contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan are reported in this federal data system, including awards originating at one contracting agency in Baghdad, which reports only some aggregate totals for inclusion in the central database. Because the agency has so far refused to furnish these missing contracts, the Center is now seeking copies via Freedom of Information Act requests.

Officials in the Baghdad office say that these contracts are unlikely to change the rankings of the largest contractors on the Top 100, although some companies at the bottom of the list may change. According to Major General Darryl A. Scott, the commander of the Baghdad contracting office, these contracts are inaccessible not through willful omission, but because of the computer resources and human labor that would be required to integrate them into the main federal procurement database.

Iraq remains the clear priority of the U.S. government, the Center's research shows, with more than seven times as many contracting dollars designated for spending there as for Afghanistan. Furthermore, minority-owned businesses received less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total awards as primary contractors. (The GSA's data does not provide subcontracting information.) And the data reveals that 12 of the 32 foreign contractors on the Top 100 are based in Turkey?-far more than any other nation.

In the early months of the Iraq war, U.S. government officials were criticized for awarding contracts there without competition. Since then, however, much of the criticism has centered on cost-plus contracts, which guarantee that a vendor will earn either a fixed amount of profit or a set percentage of profit above its cost.

Of the $13 billion awarded through cost-plus contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2004 to 2006, 30 percent was awarded through simple cost-plus, fixed-fee arrangements that offer no incentives for performance or cost savings. The largest amount awarded to one vendor through cost-plus contracts, more than $8 billion, went to KBR. Much of that was the result of a contract to provide logistical support for U.S. Army combat operations.

0 Replies

Regarding this I think there should be some way to make it unlawful for a president to make signing statements. To me it is deceitful and underhanded and I don't understand how a president can get away with it. I don't know if other presidents have done this; but Bush has done this so much that I am only now aware of this being done. Its like coming to an agreement between two parties and first one signs the agreement thinking thats the way it is going to be and then the other party signs the agreement changing the whole purpose of the agreement but its too late because the first party already signed the agreement. Those differences should be worked out before anyone signs and not allowed to change once a bill is finalized and one party already signs it.

Examples of the president's signing statements

I just don't understand why McCain fought so hard for the torture bill and then when Bush issued his signing statement taking away the whole purpose of the bill didn't say boo about it. Likewise with this Permanent Bases In Iraq Bill. Those who agreed with this bill should at least voice their displeasure over Bush signing it away. But I haven't heard anything from anyone.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Regarding this I think there should be some way to make it unlawful for a president to make signing statements. To me it is deceitful and underhanded and I don't understand how a president can get away with it. I don't know if other presidents have done this; but Bush has done this so much that I am only now aware of this being done. Its like coming to an agreement between two parties and first one signs the agreement thinking thats the way it is going to be and then the other party signs the agreement changing the whole purpose of the agreement but its too late because the first party already signed the agreement. Those differences should be worked out before anyone signs and not allowed to change once a bill is finalized and one party already signs it.

Examples of the president's signing statements

I just don't understand why McCain fought so hard for the torture bill and then when Bush issued his signing statement taking away the whole purpose of the bill didn't say boo about it. Likewise with this Permanent Bases In Iraq Bill. Those who agreed with this bill should at least voice their displeasure over Bush signing it away. But I haven't heard anything from anyone.

The solution to these problems is called impeachment. But on the otherhand there is a little thing called the delegation of powers by the USA Constitution to the federal government, and the limits of authority imposed by the USA Constitution on the federal government's elected and appointed.

For example, the federal government's taking of money from some of the people not in government and giving it to others of the people not in government, is not a power delegated by the USA Constitution to anyone in government.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bomb blast in Baghdad's pet market kills dozens

Baghdad: The death toll in the bomb blast that ripped through a popular pet market in Baghdad on Friday rose to 45 dead, police said.

Police earlier reported 35 killed by the bomb blast at the Ghazil market, which has been bombed at least three times last year.

Police initially said the blast was caused by a bomb hidden in a box of birds, but they later said it was a female suicide bomber who carried out the attack that also wounded 75 people.

In another attack, eight people were killed and 10 wounded at a separate bird market in southern Baghdad, police said.

Witnesses said that ambulances and police were trying to evacuate the wounded.

The Ghazil market only opens on Fridays and is popular among Iraqi pet lovers.

source

0 Replies

A point of view worth considering.

Quote:

Iraq failure equals success for neocons
Hazel Davies and Maureen Jack
Thursday January 31, 2008
The Guardian

It was fascinating reading Jonathan Steele's articles about the lack of planning for the occupation of Iraq (G2, January 21, 22 & 23). However, he assumes that this equates with failure and that the current mayhem is a catastrophe. For all decent people, of course, it is; but as Naomi Klein indicates in her book, The Shock Doctrine, the lack of planning was actually planned. For the neocons who run the US the disaster has been a success. The Americans have an excuse to have permanent bases as long as the insurgency lasts; a largely state-run economy has been opened to foreign capital; America has control of large oil reserves; the Middle East has a wedge of US military to control and threaten any uppity Islamic state that dares threaten its interests or those of Israel; Halliburton and other American firms have made a packet. What's to regret? The main questions are: why did Blair agree to go along with this agenda? And why was the British parliament so obtuse and supine that it agreed to it?

Jonathan Steele is correct to stress the part played by the incident at the al-Qa'id school in building up anger at US forces in Falluja. When a group of us from Christian Peacemaker Teams visited the town in June 2003 everyone we met told us about the incident, and said US troops had even fired on those trying to evacuate the wounded. Nor should we underestimate the impact of small discourtesies. I saw a US tank take a shortcut over a central reservation on a Falluja street, destroying a planter with an attractive display of flowers; I saw too the anger on the faces of Iraqis as they watched this.
St Andrews, Fife

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2249454,00.html#article_continue

0 Replies

Quote:

Gates Letter Causes Furor in Germany

A strongly-worded letter by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates requesting the deployment of German combat troops and helicopters to southern Afghanistan has caused a major political backlash in Berlin.

Both the content and timing of Gates's blunt letter to his German counterpart Franz-Josef Jung, which was leaked yesterday by the center-left paper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, have left even staunchly pro-American politicians from the conservative CDU/CSU parties supporting Chancellor Merkel astounded and annoyed. The German response was swift. Speaking at a hastily arranged press conference in Berlin earlier today, CDU defense minister Jung offered this terse statement:

"I remain convinced that we should continue and fulfill our (current Bundeswehr) mandate in Afghanistan."

Even Chancellor Merkel's usually soft-spoken spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm weighed in on the discussion, emphasizing that his boss had already made it very clear on a number of occasions that a change in the Bundeswehr's current Afghanistan mandate (which needs yearly parliamentary approval) "is not a topic for discussion."

The Pentagon's aggressive attempt to get this key ally to cough up more troops for Afghanistan (right now, Berlin has 3,500 soldiers there, the third-blargest NATO contingent overall) comes at the very time that the German government is considering a new NATO request to deploy about 250 additional Bundeswehr troops as part of the Alliance's Quick Response Force (QRF) in northern Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Gates letter had the effect of putting those CDU/CSU politicians on the political defensive when they were already arguing in favor of Germany taking over the dangerous QRF mission in the North.

For example, even someone like Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg--a prominent CSU Bundestag member who sits on the foreign relations and defense committees and travels to Washington frequently--felt compelled today to issue a press release calling the tone of Gates's letter "inappropriate" and urging the Pentagon and the rest of the U.S. administration to "straighten its lines of communication."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#4383

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Ramafuchs wrote:
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.

If I understand you correctly, you are requesting that I not respond to any of your posts about the USA invasion of Iraq until you complete your argument that the USA invasion of Iraq was a "barbaric unprovoked criminal" act. And you make this request in the name of upholding "the rare product which is called TRUTH."

I'm intrigued by the uniqueness of your request. I shall comply with your request until whichever comes first: Saturday; or you post you have completed pouring forth your views on this topic. At either time I shall repeat my last post and expect a truthful relevant response to it from you.

OK, Ramafuchs! Now it's time for you to respond to my post:
___________________________________________________________________________

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
.___________________________________________________________________________

0 Replies

Quote:

BAGHDAD -- The U.S. military said Monday it accidentally killed nine Iraqi civilians during an operation targeting al-Qaida in Iraq _ the deadliest known case of mistaken identity in recent months.

In northern Iraq, Turkish warplanes on Monday bombed some 70 Kurdish rebel targets, the Turkish military said. It was the fifth aerial attack against Kurdish rebel bases there in two months.

The Iraqi civilians were killed Saturday near Iskandariyah, 30 miles south of the Iraqi capital, Navy Lt. Patrick Evans told The Associated Press. Three wounded civilians were taken to U.S. military hospitals nearby, he said.

Evans did not say exactly how the civilians died, but said the killings occurred as U.S. forces pursued suspected al-Qaida in Iraq militants. The incident is under investigation, he said.

Iraqi police said the victims, including two women, were in two houses in the village of Tal al-Samar, which was bombed by American warplanes late Saturday. They were all Sunni members of the al-Ghrir tribe, an officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The U.S. airstrike occurred after an American convoy came under enemy fire in Tal al-Samar and soldiers called for air support, the Iraqi officer said.

Shortly after the airstrike, American officers met with a Muslim sheik representing area residents, Evans said.

"We offer our condolences to the families of those who were killed in this incident, and we mourn the loss of innocent civilian life," he said in a statement e-mailed to the AP.

The Turkish bombings early Monday hit the Avasin-Basyan and Hakurk regions of northern Iraq, the Turkish military said on its Web site.

Turkey has frequently targeted members of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, in cross-border raids into Iraq, where thousands of the rebels are based. The PKK has been fighting for autonomy in southeastern Turkey for more than two decades.

Since Dec. 16, the Turkish military has confirmed five cross-border aerial raids into Iraq, though Iraqi Kurdish officials have reported other airstrikes. Turkey's military says the raids have killed as many as 175 PKK rebels.

Adem Uzun, a member of the rebel command, said 15 to 20 Turkish jets bombed rebel areas in northern Iraq on Monday, according to Firat, a Kurdish news agency. Uzun told a Denmark-based Kurdish television station that the rebels had not suffered any casualties, the agency reported.

Senior Iraqi Kurdish officials earlier Monday confirmed that Turkish jets bombed areas near the towns of Khnera, Khwakurd and Sidakan in Irbil province. The rebel group is believed to have a large base in Khnera, but it was unclear whether the base was damaged.

The United States _ which like Turkey and the European Union considers the PKK a terrorist organization _ has cautioned Ankara against a large incursion into Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, fearing it could disrupt one of Iraq's more stable regions.

Also Monday, Iraqi police said at least five Iraqis died in separate attacks, including a senior Iraqi Foreign Ministry official killed when gunmen opened fire on his car in the western Baghdad neighborhood of Mansour.

Gunmen packed into two cars shot dead Waleed Haithem, a Foreign Ministry attache, police said.

Two policemen were also killed when a roadside bomb exploded on their patrol in northeast Baghdad's Azamiyah area. And gunmen opened fire on a bus east of Baqouba, killing two passengers, police said.

Meanwhile, an al-Qaida front group said in a statement posted on the Web that it was launching its own campaign in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, and urged volunteers to carry out suicide attacks on U.S. troops, Iraqi Shiites and Kurdish troops.

Iraqi officials have said a military push to clear al-Qaida-linked insurgents from Mosul is imminent.

The Sunni militant group, known as Mosul's regional command of the Islamic State of Iraq, said its campaign would be a "vengeance raid" but gave no details.

Also, criticism mounted among some Sunni lawmakers over a new law that will allow thousands of Saddam Hussein-era officials to return to government jobs. One Sunni bloc's leader predicted the legislation would have a "short life."

The measure _ issued a day earlier by the Iraqi presidency council _ is the first of 18 key U.S.-set benchmarks to become law, and the Bush administration views it as central to mending deep differences between minority Sunni Arabs and Kurds and the majority Shiites who now wield power. But it was issued without the signature of Iraq's Sunni vice president, and the presidency council itself plans to seek changes in the bill _ clouding hopes it would encourage reconciliation.

Saleh al-Mutlaq, head of the National Dialogue Front, said the law "was approved by a strange way. ... We expect it to have a short life." His 11-seat bloc combined Monday with the Arab Independent bloc, which holds 11 of parliament's 275 seats.

source

0 Replies

If we could just find a way to convince those al-Qaeda people to stop killing Iraqis, we could reduce our propensity to make mistakes killing Iraqis, while trying to kill those al-Qaeda people in order to protect Iraqis.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

If we could just find a way to convince those al-Qaeda people to stop killing Iraqis, we could reduce our propensity to make mistakes killing Iraqis, while trying to kill those al-Qaeda people in order to protect Iraqis.

So you are willing to admit that we are not currently experiencing success convincing AQ to stop?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
If we could just find a way to convince those al-Qaeda people to stop killing Iraqis, we could reduce our propensity to make mistakes killing Iraqis, while trying to kill those al-Qaeda people in order to protect Iraqis.

So you are willing to admit that we are not currently experiencing success convincing AQ to stop?

Cycloptichorn

Obviously, not yet!

I am convinced that nothing will really stop al-Qaeda short of their extermination.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
If we could just find a way to convince those al-Qaeda people to stop killing Iraqis, we could reduce our propensity to make mistakes killing Iraqis, while trying to kill those al-Qaeda people in order to protect Iraqis.

So you are willing to admit that we are not currently experiencing success convincing AQ to stop?

Cycloptichorn

Obviously, not yet!

I am convinced that nothing will really stop al-Qaeda short of their extermination.

Have we tried all options?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Actually if you were really worried about AQ you would want us the get out of Iraq so we can concentrate on real threats from AQ.

Quote:

WASHINGTON ?- Al Qaeda is gaining in strength from its refuge in Pakistan and is steadily improving its ability to recruit, train and position operatives capable of carrying out attacks inside the United States, the director of national intelligence told a Senate panel on Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/washington/06intel.html

Of course this would be tantamount in admitting being in Iraq has not done us once ounce of good in going after terrorist or doing anything about new recruits being brought over the AQ side.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know