9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Feb, 2008 03:26 pm
Quote:
Over Here: Iraq the Place vs. Iraq the Abstraction
George Packer
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/winter-2008/full-iraq.html
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Feb, 2008 06:12 pm
OK! We and the Iraqis screwed up.

Rather than run away, we must now persist until Iraqi and American freedom is secured

Quote:
Over Here: Iraq the Place vs. Iraq the Abstraction
George Packer
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/winter-2008/full-iraq.html
...
the war had a meaning. It meant a chance to live a decent life, something that had never been remotely possible and remains a dream even today. The war began as folly; it became a tragedy when the hopes and lives of Iraqis and Americans began to be expended by the thousands.

"I can never blame the Americans alone," an Iraqi refugee named Firas told me in early 2007. "It's the Iraqis who destroyed their country, with the help of the Americans, under the American eye." To gain this wisdom, Firas had to lose almost everything. What would it take for Americans to understand what Firas already does? A recognition that Iraq was everyone's loss, whichever side you were on.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 01:18 pm
Quote:
Rather than run away, we must now persist until Iraqi and American freedom is secured


We are not securing Iraqi freedom and we were never were securing American freedom with this war because our freedom was never at risk from Iraq to start with.

Quote:
Baghdad

Gunmen opened fire targeting Lieutenant General Mohammed Basim Abdul Redha and Colonel Farqad Salman Alwan, both work in the directorate in the general inspector of the defense ministry. The incident took place at 9:00 am in al Yarmook neighborhood west Baghdad.

A civilian was killed and two others were injured when gunmen opened fire randomly targeting a bus in al Nosoor square west Baghdad around 3:00 pm.

A joint force of the Iraqi army and the US army found a grave yard includes five bodies of men in Boob al Sham area north of Baghdad

Police found five bodies in Baghdad today. Three bodies were found in Karkh, the western side of Baghdad in the following neighborhoods (2 bodies in Mansour and 1 body in Washash). The two others bodies were found Ma'amil and Husseiniyah neighborhoods in Rusafa, the eastern side of Baghdad.

Salahuddin

23 people were killed and 45 others wounded when a suicide car bomb targeted a shopping center in al Mazari'a village in Yathrib district south of Tikrit city around 4:30 pm. Many shops were damaged.

Gunmen killed two civilians near Tikrit- Baghdad Street north of Baghdad today afternoon.

Diyala

Two policemen were killed and 17 people (10 policemen and 7 civilians) were injured when ten mortar shells hit Baladrooz police station in Baladrooz town east of Baquba city today morning.

Kirkuk

The head of Abbasi Sahwa Majeed Ahmed Khalaf was injured with two of his followers when a suicide bomber detonated his car near their car on Abbasi- Hawija Street southwest Kirkuk city around 9:30 am. Police said that the suicide bomber was driving a pick up car carrying a cow in the back of the car and got close to Khalaf's car then detonated his car.

Anbar

3 people were killed (a police officer and two members of Sahwa) and seven civilians were injured when a suicide car bomb targeted a check point in Albo Efan area (an area where Albo Essa tribe and the sheikhs of Sahwa live) west of Baghdad around 5:00 pm.

Nineveh

A source in the Iraqi army said that gunmen from Qaida killed a family(parents and their four children) in Sinjar town west of Mosul city today morning. After the incident, joint troops (Sahwa and USA troops supported by the tribes) raided the strongholds of the insurgents and clashes with them. Ten insurgents were killed and three others were arrested. Six Sahwa members were killed two women were injured during the clashes.

Four civilians were injured in a suicide car bomb that targeted a check point of the Iraqi army in al Hadba'a neighborhood downtown Mosul city north of Baghdad today afternoon.

Four Iraqi soldiers were killed and seven civilians were killed in suicide car bomb that targeted a check point of the Iraq army in al Sahaji area west of Mosul city today afternoon.

A fuel station owner was killed and three other civilians were injured when a gunman opened fire in Haj Ali village in Makhmoor town southeast of Mosul city.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/212/story/27217.html

Quote:


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/27147.html

Quote:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide car bomb killed 33 people in Iraq on Sunday, a security official said, hours before U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates arrived in Baghdad to assess recent security gains and discuss troop levels.


http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1880448320080210

All this happened under the so called drop in violence; when will it be secured? At what price to us here in the US and for Iraqis; I think the price too high. If we left; most of the reason AQI is fighting in Iraq will leave with us and if we left it will help strengthen our military readiness in other needed areas plus cut down on our spending (borrowing from China) which has skyrocketed with this war of choice called the Iraq war. War should never be a war of choice but rather a last resort for immediate clear and present danger; which the Iraq war was definitely not.

I know the come back; Ican; if we didn't go to Iraq the small AQ presence in Iraq would have grown like it did it in Afghanistan...Yea well; it has done that in Pakistan instead.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:10 pm
revel wrote:
Quote:
Rather than run away, we must now persist until Iraqi and American freedom is secured.


We are not securing Iraqi freedom and we were never were securing American freedom with this war because our freedom was never at risk from Iraq to start with.

...

Malarky!

Yes, from the beginning we were attempting to secure Iraqi freedom and secure American freedom.

Yes, we have not yet succeeded securing Iraqi freedom and securing American freedom.

No, we must not run away, until we have secured Iraqi and American freedom.

Yes, I understand I should not bother you with the facts, because your mind is made up!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2008 08:27 am
Quote:
Yes, I understand I should not bother you with the facts, because your mind is made up!


Your facts are made up or twisted to suit your arguments and then are repeated so often there is nothing new to read or respond to. You ignore government reports unless it fits in with your theories; you do the same with daily news of the day in Iraq. I hesitate to call it what you call all the evidence anyone produces which goes against your theories for fear of starting the whole "soros" argument up again. You spam this thread with tricks like that.

You have a one track mind in this thread of saying we have to stay until all so called AQ is conquered or reduced to an acceptable level and any post responding to that comment you just come back basically repeating yourself again. It goes round and round. Every time I post a reply to you I know what you are going to say because you say nothing new; you just might use a current phrase of the week or month to spice it up or something but basically you just keep saying the same thing as you have been saying for almost five years now. We have got to stay in Iraq no matter what until all AQ (in you own mind) is gone or reduced in Iraq to an acceptable level. When someone ask you for some kind of proof you just trot out portions of the 9/11 report; or the Iraq authorization from congress or quotes from Bin Laden or other AQ members or other unknown militant Muslims or you will leave your little numbers posts which don't mean a thing because it is your own calculated numbers.

For example; I might leave an article which a general in the military says we are at risk from the Iraq war (they include Afghanistan but more of our military is in Iraq rather than Afghanistan) because our military readiness is stressed. You will just come back and say we need to stay there until Iraq is secured.

Before Gates went to Iraq yesterday he was considering keeping up with the drawdown because the generals have been saying we are becoming too stressed because of Iraq. However; he was greeted with the suicide twin bomb attack and changed his mind because he says Iraq remains fragile. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates

If things improve people who want this war forever will say; we need to stay to keep it that way; if things start get worse they will say we need to stay to help Iraqis get back on their feet even though we have had success Iraq remains fragile. It is always going to remain "fragile." We can't stay there for ever or a "hundred years" and still maintain every other concern the US has both domestically and foreign. We do not have an endless supply to both keep up our country and our military and both are suffering because of the Iraq mistake.

We can't fix Iraq and we are in no more danger from Iraq than we are from any other place over there if things stay the same if we leave and that is true now and was true then when we went in. I have left dozens of links for evidence but you just ignore it and come back and say the same things with no evidence other than the ones I described earlier in this post.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2008 09:18 am
Monday, February 11, 2008
70 Killed or found Dead on Sunday;
Big Bombing Near Balad:
Baquba Clashes

So first on Sunday, Sunni Arab guerrillas tried to overwhelm Iraqi security forces, Awakening Council members and US troops at two villages near Sinjar not far from the Syrian border. The pro-US forces fought them off, but 22 died in the encounter, some on each side. McClatchy describes the events thusly:
http://www.juancole.com/
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2008 11:28 am
Quote:
Today's Must Read
By Paul Kiel - February 11, 2008, 9:47AM
Back in the summer of 2005, just as journalists were toiling to produce the first books on what had gone so horribly wrong in Iraq, the Army was handed a thorough study by the RAND Corporation, its federally-financed research arm.

And it came, as one might expect, to some sharp conclusions. It faulted the President and Condoleezza Rice, Don Rumsfeld's Pentagon, Colin Powell's State Department, and Gen. Tommy Franks' Central Command for a variety of shortcomings, all essentially for their role in not adequately preparing for securing postwar Iraq. The report provided a strategy for how the Army and the government in general might avoid a similar plight the next time around (the short version: try preparing for the aftermath).

Unclassified versions of RAND reports are regularly made public, and the researchers had hoped a version of this report would be too. But, as The New York Times reports this morning, the Army wasn't happy with the product. So they buried it.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/todays_must_read_273.php

Link to NY Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/washington/11army.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=f48ede9889a3519b&ex=1360472400&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2008 11:34 am
Now this is really very good...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs&eurl=http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2008 01:16 pm
How about opening your 12th or 13th or 14th or 100th thread about Iraq's progress?


"Iraq is dying; soon Iraq will be dead.
True, there will be a plot of land in the Middle East
which people will refer to as Iraq.
But any hope of a resurrected homogeneous Iraqi nation populated by a diverse people capable of coexisting in peace and harmony is soon to be swept away forever.
Any hope of a way out for the people of Iraq and their neighbors is about to become a victim of the “successes” of the “surge” and the denial of reality.

http://chris-floyd.com/
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2008 07:20 pm
revel wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I understand I should not bother you with the facts, because your mind is made up!


Your facts are ... We can't fix Iraq and we are in no more danger from Iraq than we are from any other place over there ... When someone ask you for some kind of proof you just trot out portions of the 9/11 report; or the Iraq authorization from congress or quotes from Bin Laden or other AQ members or other unknown militant Muslims or you will leave your little numbers posts which don't mean a thing because it is your own calculated numbers ... you just keep saying the same thing ... no evidence other than the ones I described earlier in this post.

You faithfully report the casualties of the mass murderers in Iraq, and claim they wouldn't be doing that had we not invaded Iraq, and would stop if we would just leave Iraq. And the evidence you provide to support your opinion is the published unsupported opinion of those with whom you agree.

Yes, I understand I should not bother you with the facts, because your mind is made up! Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:14 am
I may have made the statement that the problem of violence from Iraq would leave if we left; but I meant the reason for AQI in Iraq would leave if we left. However; upon reflection; that is probably an overstatement as well. AQI in Iraq probably now has a stake in making sure Iraq is never a success since it is a product so to speak of the US; so if we left; chances are the violence in Iraq would still continue in that quarter plus maybe get worse in among the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites. Nevertheless; it will always be about like it is now or maybe get worse and we cannot afford to stay there forever and staying there does not fix it anyway but only contains it---somewhat. There are other areas in the world we need to focus on rather than be so bogged down in Iraq for another twenty or hundred year no matter if Iraq is a success or not. It will not affect our freedom if we leave Iraq before there is total success or as you say Iraq is secured.

Because like I said repeatedly; our freedom was never in danger from Iraq no more than any other place where there is an AQ presence or US hatred in a country or region. I have brought links which showed how AQ has grown in other countries while we have been in Iraq so that would negate any security gains we might have had by being in Iraq to fight AQ. AQ is a movement not a military from a certain country so it makes no sense to just stay in one country to fight AQ when they are everywhere. We will never completely stamp out AQ in Iraq to leave us free to go to those other countries to stamp out AQ. We will not win this fight with violence in the long run but with political diplomacy for moderate Muslims. We have just made our problem worse instead of better by pissing off moderate Muslims with our macho attitude towards the AQ war with this "you are either for us or against us" attitude. It divides rather than brings any reconciliation. I could go on but I just ramble to no affect on deaf ears so to speak.


My point is that I keep saying things like this; you keep saying what you say and round and round it goes. The only difference is that I actually bring links that are current; usually from that day about either the political situation or the violence in Iraq or some new reports about Iraq from the US or new evidence. Sure it supports my point of view. That is the point of bringing; to support what I say.

You are of course free to bring daily positive stories from Iraq and how things are improving and not just numbers which dehumanizes Iraqi lives or quotes from Muslim Militants which puts all Muslim in one category when they might not have the same goal or share much in common other than they are Muslim and using violence. Bring links about how Sunni groups turned against the AQI and started their own group called the awakening counsel for example. This is a positive thing you could have brought to support your view; but you never have. (I have)

Speaking of the awakening counsel:


Twin Iraq bombs target US-allied Sunnis
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2008 10:55 am
Too many babies without eyes in Iraq as a result of depleted Uranium bombs Edward De Sutter 26/05/2001 source : Dutch Journal Medical Science Irak Depleted Uranium

Source: Nederlands Tijdschrift Geneeskunde, 2001, 26 mei; 145(21), blz.1024 (Dutch Journal Medical Science, 26 May, 2001; 145(21), p.1024) Iraq: Too many babies without eyes Mohammed A. Salman, an eye surgeon from Baghdad, is reporting via the internet about the phenomenon anophthalmos: babies who have been born with only one eye or who are missing both eyes. This is a rare anomaly, which normally exists at 1 of the 50 million births. The Iraqi eye doctor, however, is reporting 9 cases in two years; 8 babies are missing both eyes. The Flemish eye doctor Edward De Sutter from the Groeninghe Hospital in Kortrijk picked up the message from internet and started a scientific discussion with Salman per e-mail. On the critical and unbelieving questions from De Sutter, Salman proposed to come and to look by himself. De Sutter accepted the invitation and came to Iraq, together with two other colleague eye doctors. What he saw in Iraq, was horrible, like he writes in the Flemish daily 'De Standaard' (5 May, 2001). De Sutter examined a number of children by himself which was born without eyes, but also saw some pictures of children with grotesque anomalies, such as the start of one eye in the middle of the face: the so- called cyclops. His colleague Roland Bonneux examined children with an absent crown of the skull who were keeping alive in the incubator. "I am not so much bewildered about the presence of the anomalies as well about the great number out of them", says De Sutter. Out of the 4000 births there are 20 with such anomalies."Iraq seems to be a scientific curiosity." The cause is evident according to Salman: from 7 of the 8 anophthalmosic babies who missed both eyes, the fathers have been exposed to U.S. antitank weapons during the attack of the U.S. on Iraq in 1991. At this depleted uranium was used. According to the official point of view from the U.S. the radioactive particles, which released during the use of such weapons, pose no danger for the health, but various groups - amongst them participants of the conflicts in Kosovo in 1999 - disputing this. Leaving all political sensitivities aside it has been clear to De Sutter that Salman needs help. Not only concrete aid of medicines and material, but also aid in the field of scientific knowledge and support. On a special web page of the Association of Eye doctors in Flanders ( http://www.iraqi-child.com ) more is mentioned about the mission of De Sutter to Iraq and the aid program that he and his colleagues want to set up.

Translation by Henk van der Keur

Contact: Dr.Med.Dr.Sc. Edward De Sutter Dienst Oogziekten C.A.Z.K. O.L.V. Groeninghe Campus Sint-Maarten B. J. Vercruysselaan 5 B-8500 Kortrijk edward.desutter asr azgroeninge.be
http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article16606
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2008 12:24 pm
Blueflame
it is the most barbaric act .
USA had engaged to butcher, torture, rape, loot the Iraq without any reason.


Barbaric= primitive, banal, below the level of civilized world.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2008 12:44 pm
"Can anything be more ridiculous than
that a man have the RIGHT to kill me because
he lives on the other side of the water
and because HIS ruler has a quarrel with mine?"--- Blaise Pascal
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2008 12:55 pm
We don't see any US news media sharing that kind of info to American citizens, although I have grave doubts it'll make make much difference to the majority. We heard about the increasing numbers of orphans and starvation, and that wasn't even a blip on the radar screen. Shame on us!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2008 02:47 pm
revel wrote:

...
it will always be about like it is now or maybe get worse and we cannot afford to stay there forever and staying there does not fix it anyway but only contains it---somewhat. There are other areas in the world we need to focus on rather than be so bogged down in Iraq for another twenty or hundred year no matter if Iraq is a success or not. It will not affect our freedom if we leave Iraq before there is total success or as you say Iraq is secured.

We agree that there other areas on earth besides Iraq and Afghanistan we should focus on. I think the primary such areas are those where AQ is training and mass murdering non-murderers. Pakistan is but one example. But what should be the nature of our focus now? What should be our actions now? Assuming we cannot simultaneously do what you recommend in all the areas where AQ is developing and mass murdering, what should we do now?

We know from past experience that when we invade one area where AQ is developing and mass murdering, many of them flee to another area. For example many of the AQ in Afghanistan when we invaded it, fled to both Iraq and Pakistan. Surely if we were to leave Iraq and invade Pakistan, AQ in Pakistan would flee back to Iraq.

I believe there are better tactics for us to employ for exterminating AQ everywhere than the ones we are currently employing. But one thing we ought not do is abandon either Iraq or Afghanistan until we exterminate AQ in those places.


Because like I said repeatedly; our freedom was never in danger from Iraq no more than any other place where there is an AQ presence ...

We disagree about that as you already know. However, let's assume for the sake of argument our freedom is equally in danger no matter what AQ's location.

...
We will not win this fight with violence in the long run but with political diplomacy for moderate Muslims. We have just made our problem worse instead of better by pissing off moderate Muslims with our macho attitude towards the AQ war with this "you are either for us or against us" attitude. It divides rather than brings any reconciliation.
...

I do not understand why you think "political diplomacy for moderate Muslims" will achieve our goal of stopping AQ from continuing its mass murder of moderate Muslims and ultimately resuming its mass murder of Americans.

...

My point is that I keep saying things like this; you keep saying what you say and round and round it goes. The only difference is that I actually bring links that are current; usually from that day about either the political situation or the violence in Iraq or some new reports about Iraq from the US or new evidence. Sure it supports my point of view. That is the point of bringing; to support what I say.

I have zero objection to your posting links that support your point of view. I reject most of them, however, because most of them are either merely the unsupported opinions of others, or they are status reports limited to the bad news in Iraq. Whereas, the evidence I have repeatedly posted ad nauseam, are the actual declarations of AQ leadership, or are the supported opinions[/U of others including, but not limited to, government commissions.[/color]

...

Bring links about how Sunni groups turned against the AQI and started their own group called the awakening counsel for example. This is a positive thing you could have brought to support your view; but you never have. (I have)

Yes, you have and I have not. I on the other hand have supplied what I consider to be the most important information. I have supplied the link to the IBC objectors to the Iraq war, who estimate mass murders in Iraq war. I apply this data to compute and post the Iraq mass murder trend since 01/01/2003. It has definitely been decreasing since the surge became fully operational in June 2007.
...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2008 08:21 am
Quote:
I do not understand why you think "political diplomacy for moderate Muslims" will achieve our goal of stopping AQ from continuing its mass murder of moderate Muslims and ultimately resuming its mass murder of Americans.


Because if we employ diplomatic tactics for moderate muslims they are less likely to turn to extremist militant muslims for answers-this seems obvious to me.

Quote:
I have zero objection to your posting links that support your point of view. I reject most of them, however, because most of them are either merely the unsupported opinions of others, or they are status reports limited to the bad news in Iraq. Whereas, the evidence I have repeatedly posted ad nauseam, are the actual declarations of AQ leadership, or are the supported opinions[/U of others including, but not limited to, government commissions. [/quote]

This is not true; I usually bring links to this thread about events which happen in Iraq or current reports. Sometimes I might bring a liberal source with opinions but in the article there is always links to facts or I don't bother to bring it knowing it can justifiably be dismissed as an empty biased source of opinions otherwise.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2008 08:51 am
McClatchy newspapers has correspondents based in Iraq. They report on events which happen in Iraq which are newsworthy. Positive stories are not terribly newsworthy; however; positive stories about Iraq have been published by McClatchy newspapers when they happen. They reported the drop in violence; they reported the turning of the Sunni insurgents against foreign AQI members and other positive stories. It just happens more negative events happen than positive news in Iraq. On that note:

Quote:


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/v-print/story/27346.html

(I am beginning to wonder if the terrorist want us bogged down in Iraq.)

Why staying in Iraq is not wise or useful.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/31/mullen-eventual-drawdown/

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/09/casey-army-years/

(as usual links for facts are in the articles at think progress; just click on the words in colors)
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2008 01:03 pm
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Speaker Threatens to Dissolve Parliament;
13 Bodies found at Muqdadiya;
3 Students Killed near Balad Ruz
http://www.juancole.com/
Mission accompalished.
But the Dreams of Americans had never realized.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2008 08:09 pm
revel wrote:
Quote:
I do not understand why you think "political diplomacy for moderate Muslims" will achieve our goal of stopping AQ from continuing its mass murder of moderate Muslims and ultimately resuming its mass murder of Americans.


Because if we employ diplomatic tactics for moderate muslims they are less likely to turn to extremist militant muslims for answers-this seems obvious to me.

...

Moderate Muslims are not mass murdering moderate Muslims. So our problem with them is succeeding via diplomatic negotiations in helping them establish an Iraq government capable of securing them without our help against those who are not moderate Muslims, and who are mass murderers of moderate Muslims. Those diplomatic negotiations have been on going for some considerable time, but are proceeding slowly at best.

It is plausible that the moderate Muslims will finally rescue themselves only after we leave, because as long as we remain in Iraq, moderate Muslims will not take adequate responsibility for their own protection. However, I wish I had as much confidence in that theory as you seem to have.
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 09:25:44