9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 12:45 pm
@revel,
An interesting read on the contribution from the French to the American War, which btw is not at all comparable to our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html

And another interesting read some time after the war of independence was won and before George Washington was president.

http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/washington/essays/biography/2

And

http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/essays/carp.html







ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 04:42 pm
@revel,
Yes, interesting reads, each and every one. What conclusions different from mine about the French 1776-1783 did you draw from those articles?
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 09:47 pm
@ican711nm,
Not really different conclusions since I already agreed that the French helped us win revolutionary war. The difference comes in comparisons in the role the French had and the role we had/have in Iraq which are so entirely different that they can't really be used as any kind of analogy between the two as some kind of justification for our remaining in Iraq.

Besides all that; the French only helped us win the war of independence from Britain. Once the war was over (8 years), their part was done from what I gathered in my reading this morning. They did not stay to make sure we had a stable government and interfere with how we formed our government. We have captured, sentenced and hanged Saddam Hussein, there are no WMD; the war is as over for us as it is ever going to be and the rest internally is up to the Iraqis. All we are doing now is nation building.






ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 09:52 am
@revel,
All true, Revel, except that the peace treaty with Britain formally ending the revolutionary war, was signed in Paris in 1783, 7 years after the revelutionary war started in 1776.

The USA didn't establish its Constitution and our representative republic until 1789, 6 years later, for a total of 13 years.

So far the Iraqis with our help/interference--call it what you will--are approaching only 6 years, 2003 to 2009, in their effort to establish a representative republic.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 09:57 am
@ican711nm,
You're counting the chicks before they hatch; Iran seems to be paying off the Iraqis to not approve the agreement on our occupation. Sunnis and Shias are split; they will not come together on anything any time soon. We then have the problems between the Sunnis and Kurds. They are internal problems that outside military cannot fix.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 01:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
If the Iraqis were to match the USA's original 13 year pace back in the 18th century, the Iraqis have 7 more years in the 21st century.
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 10:48 pm
http://www.texansforpeace.org/endthewar/Graphicsendthewar/photosofIraqis/SoccerFadhilBaghdad071608.jpg


p
Pictures from Iraq 2008


0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 10:51 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, What in the world are you talking about? The US is only a couple hundred years old. Iraq is a couple of thousand years old. You do understand "this" difference, don't you?
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 06:51 am
A troubling situation
Quote:
Iraqis are being attacked and killed for returning to their homes

BAGHDAD " Haj Ali's family had been home for less than a month when a makeshift bomb blew off part of his garage. The message was clear: Go back to wherever you came from.

Two years ago, when Sunni Muslims began killing Shiites in Ali's west Baghdad neighborhood, he quickly gathered a few belongings and fled. Last month, his family returned home. They didn't stay long.

"We thought it was safe," Ali said. "Now I see that for us, home means death. There are still people who don't want us there."

Only a small fraction of the roughly 5 million Iraqis who've fled their neighborhoods in fear since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion have gone back, although returns have picked up since the Iraqi government last month began urging people home.

In Baghdad, where most of the sectarian cleansing has taken place, about 8 percent of the people who moved within the country have gone back to their neighborhoods, according to the International Organization for Migration.

Many Iraqi families have returned to their old homes in peace, but a disturbing trend already is emerging: They're being targeted and attacked, and in some cases killed, for trying to go home. Some have been threatened. Others have found explosives tied to their front doors. Some have had their homes blown up.

The trend, along with an uptick in sectarian and ethnic violence in northern Iraq and growing tensions among rival Shiite factions in the south, is a worrisome development for American political and military leaders who're increasingly eager to declare victory in Iraq so more U.S. troops can be sent to Afghanistan.

Sectarian cleansing has helped to reduce the violence in Iraq to a four-year low, but the small number of returnees who've been targeted so far could be a warning that the violence could return, too.

"There are insurgents still remaining on all sides who don't want the situation to improve," said Bassim al Hassani, a member of the Iraqi parliament's committee on displacement. "So they are targeting a few to send a message to many."

There are no formal estimates of how many people have been attacked or killed for trying to return to their homes, but U.S. military officials, aid organizations and the Iraqi government acknowledge that some returnees are being targeted.

At least a few families coming home to Baghdad and Diyala province have been killed, an Oct. 1 study by the IOM reported. American commanders in several parts of the capital said the homes of some returnees have been targeted with explosives.

"It's not happening every day, but it is happening," said Army Capt. Dave Lombardo from Kennesaw, Ga., the commander of the 4th Infantry Division's Troop B, 7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team out of Fort Hood, Texas, who oversees Baghdad's Khadraa neighborhood. "It's usually explosives taped up to people's front gates. It's an intimidation tactic."

In Ghazaliyah, a west Baghdad neighborhood where about 250 families have come home since Sept. 1, attacks on returnees are carried out or attempted about twice a week, said Lt. Col. John Hermeling, a native of Green Bay, Wis., the commander of the 1st Squadron, 75th Cavalry Regiment from Fort Campbell, Ky.

In southern Ghazaliyah, an area once dominated by Sunni insurgents and al Qaida in Iraq, Shiite families have come home to makeshift bombs, military officials said. A few returnees' houses have been blown up, and at least one resettler has been killed, a Shiite who was gunned down in a drive-by shooting.

In other neighborhoods, returnees have been kidnapped, said Mazin al Ajaili, the head of the Baghdad city council's displacement committee.

"We are hearing of people coming home and finding letters with a bullet tucked in, or they find messages written on their doors," Ajaili said. "Sometimes one family member is killed so the rest will leave again."

The Brookings Institution began recording threats and attacks against returnees this summer, said Elizabeth Ferris, a senior fellow at the center-left Washington policy group, which uses on-the-ground researchers to track displaced Iraqis.

As the number of people returning home has increased, so has the targeting, Ferris said.

"We're hearing about some pretty direct threats " people getting phone calls or finding notes on their doors telling them they'll be harmed if they don't leave again. . . . But we're just getting individual anecdotes. It's still hard to say how widespread it is."

Brookings hasn't noticed that either sect " Sunni or Shiite " is being targeted more than the other, Ferris said. "I think it just depends on the neighborhood and who's in control."

At least some of the attacks targeting returnees may have more to do with simple economics than Iraq's sectarian divide. As families have fled, others have taken up their homes, often living rent-free in houses nicer than the ones they left. Understandably, Iraqis in that category are in no hurry to see mass returns.

"We think some of the attacks are probably coming from squatters who aren't ready to move out, so they try to scare people from coming back," said Capt. Thomas Melton of Shreveport, La., who oversees south Ghazaliyah as the commander of Troop A, 1st Squadron, 75th Cavalry Regiment. "It makes sense."

Even if the attacks aren't widespread, they may already be achieving their aim. Bassim Salman, a policeman who fled Baghdad's Furat neighborhood in 2005, said he was preparing to go back until he heard that some returnees' homes had been burned down.

"Just two days ago, I heard a man was killed in Furat while he was cleaning out his house to bring his family back," Bassim said. "They say it is safe to return. But I won't go."

Despite the uncertainty, the Iraqi government is shutting down camps for the displaced, offering money to those who go home and opening centers across Baghdad where families can register for help resettling.

On Sept. 1, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, a Shiite, ordered all squatters who've taken over homes of people who fled to get out.

When they're evicted, however, some squatters can't afford to pay for new housing. Rents have risen substantially since many of them first fled, and unemployment across Iraq hovers around 50 percent.

In some cases, squatters can't return to the homes they left because other squatters have moved into them. Many say their neighborhoods still are too dangerous to go back.

"A lot of the people who have been forced out to make way for the people coming home are angry," said Tahseen al Sheikhly, Iraq's civilian spokesman for Baghdad security operations. "Sometimes when a home is blown up, it is for revenge."


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/53871.html



0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 10:08 am
@cicerone imposter,
Americans required 13 years (1776 - 1789) to win the revolutionary war and establish a representative Constitutional Republic back in the 18th Century.

So far, Iraqis have not yet taken 6 years (2003 - 2008) in their effort to win the Iraq war and establish a representative Constitutional Republic in the 21st Century.

I'm willing for America to help Iraq establish a representative Constitutional Republic by the year 2016, 13 years after the start of the Iraq war in 2003.

By the way, the country Iraq, along with some other middle eastern countries, was established as a country in the 20th century, not in the 1st century.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 10:20 am
@ican711nm,
Are you intentionally ignoring my comments on this subject? There is absolutely no relationship between the US revolutionary war and the current war in Iraq. None.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 11:52 am
@cicerone imposter,
There is no logic to it he gets a maggot in his brain and there is not dislodging it. The French did not invade America and occupy it but still Ican persists in comparing apples to oranges. Once the French realized that we had a shot at winning our independence from Britain they decided to help us and with their help we were able to win the revolution war. (kind of makes it ironic)After the war was won they did not stick around to make sure we were stabilized with the natives or help us set up our government or anything. Nor would we have welcomed it.

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 02:46 pm
Americans required 13 years (1776 - 1789) to win the revolutionary war and establish a representative Constitutional Republic back in the 18th Century.

So far, Iraqis have not yet taken 6 years (2003 - 2008) in their effort to win the Iraq war and establish a representative Constitutional Republic in the 21st Century.

I'm willing for America to help Iraq establish a representative Constitutional Republic by the year 2016, 13 years after the start of the Iraq war in 2003.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 03:02 pm
@ican711nm,
"you're willing?" ROFLMAO
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 04:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am willing = I will vote for a President who will support Iraq unti 2016 or until Iraq asks us to leave.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 08:18 am
Quote:
Iraq says will not be bullied into signing US pact

BAGHDAD (AFP) " Iraq has warned it would not be bullied into signing a security pact with the United States despite US leaders warning of potentially dire consequences if it failed to approve the deal.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Washington had agreed to listen to requested changes to the controversial deal, which aims to govern the long-term presence of US troops in Iraq beyond 2008.

But the White House said the agreement, which has been the subject of months of tough negotiations, was more or less done, and any amendments would be merely fine-tuning.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has predicted that Washington and Baghdad would settle their differences and sign a security pact before the end of 2008.

"I believe that both sides will get this worked out because both sides have a great interest in getting this done," Rice told reporters during a flight from the United States to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.

Rice said "there is still some time" to iron out differences with the Iraqis that are holding up a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which aims to govern the long-term presence of US troops in Iraq beyond 2008.

"The (UN) Security Council resolution expires at the end of the year but I don't think we want to get to that point. I think we want to get this done more quickly than that," Rice said.

To the apparent frustration of the Americans, the Iraqi cabinet decided on Tuesday to seek revisions to a deal that was originally supposed to have been sealed by the end of July.

But Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh lashed out at remarks by US military chief Michael Mullen who had said Baghdad risked significant security losses if an agreement is not concluded.

"It is not correct to force Iraqis into making a choice and it is not appropriate to talk with the Iraqis in this way," Dabbagh said.

The draft deal calls for a withdrawal of US combat forces by the end of 2011 -- more than eight years after the invasion -- and includes US concessions on jurisdiction over its troops accused of "serious crimes" while off duty or off base.

But the draft has ignited fierce debate in Iraq, with radical anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr leading a wave of protests and even Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's aides voicing dissent.

"Yes, they are going to listen to the changes," Zebari told AFP. "We will give the amendments in writing. They will study it and get back to us."

But he added: "I don't think they are in the mood for renegotiating the deal altogether. We will see in the next few days."

He warned it would be "difficult" to sign before the US presidential vote on November 4, given that the pact still has to go before parliament which can ratify or reject it.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said "the door wasn't slammed shut but it's pretty much closed in our opinion."

And the Pentagon again accused US archfoe Iran of seeking to derail the accord.

"Iranian meddling in Iraq takes on all forms" including "an attempt by the Iranians to undermine, undercut, derail the SOFA (status of forces) agreement," spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

US commanders have long accused Shiite Iran of meddling in the affairs of neighbouring Iraq by aiding militia groups in the country, charges denied by Tehran.

But Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani, speaking on a visit to Bahrain, said the deal "encroaches on the sovereignty (of Iraq), and does not allow the creation of a strong government."

Mullen had said that if Baghdad delayed signing the deal beyond the December 31 expiry of the current UN mandate, its forces "will not be ready to provide for their security."

"And in that regard there is great potential for losses of significant consequence."

Dabbagh said such a statement was unwelcome.

"All Iraqis and their political entities are aware of their responsibilities and are assessing whether to sign the deal or not in a way that it is suitable to them."

Iraqi military spokesman Brigadier General Qassim Atta also insisted that domestic forces were ready to handle security nationwide, saying their numbers had increased and that they were already controlling 11 provinces.

Iraq is also due on Thursday to take over security in the southern province of Babil, the 12th of 18 in the country.

"Mullen's remark is an attempt to pressure the Iraqi side, but we will not be subjected to such tactics because our reservations are linked to the sovereignty and national interest of Iraq," senior Shiite MP Abbas al-Bayati said.

"The American side should be more flexible because if they really want to pass this agreement, they should first stop launching such warnings which provoke Iraqis."

Some cabinet ministers oppose a clause that allows Iraq to ask US forces to stay beyond 2011 if required for training local troops, raising fears that this could lead to a long-term presence.

Science and Technology Minister Raed Jahed Fahmi also said there were concerns over what would constitute "serious crimes" committed by American personnel for which they could be prosecuted under Iraqi law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081023/wl_afp/usiraqmilitary_081023023619
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 12:50 pm
@revel,
Quote:
The draft deal calls for a withdrawal of US combat forces by the end of 2011 -- more than eight years after the invasion -- and includes US concessions on jurisdiction over its troops accused of "serious crimes" while off duty or off base.
...
He warned it would be "difficult" to sign before the US presidential vote on November 4, given that the pact still has to go before parliament which can ratify or reject it.
...
Mullen had said that if Baghdad delayed signing the deal beyond the December 31 expiry of the current UN mandate, its forces "will not be ready to provide for their security."
...
Some cabinet ministers oppose a clause that allows Iraq to ask US forces to stay beyond 2011 if required for training local troops, raising fears that this could lead to a long-term presence.
...

I want:

The USA to withdraw its forces from Iraq by whatever date the Iraq government asks our government to withdraw from Iraq.

I add:

The USA to re-enter Iraq if and only if al-Qaeda increases its forces in Iraq.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 03:11 pm
@ican711nm,

Have you any idea how depressing it is to go to a thread, and to find that the last post was by Ican?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 06:46 pm
@McTag,
Poor fella. Seek help. Counseling might be sufficient to help you cope.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 01:58 pm
@ican711nm,
ican wrote :

Quote:
The USA to re-enter Iraq if and only if al-Qaeda increases its forces in Iraq.


this is going to be fun !
ican is going to iraq to count al-qaeda "freedom fighters" periodically to arrive at a proper decision .
don't forget to send us a postcard .
hbg

this thread is wortwhile looking at again .
ican is promising to entertain us .
 

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 09/30/2024 at 11:28:15