9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 09:17 pm
ican711nm wrote:
The pollsters have yet to ask a random sample of 1,000 adult American people: Do you FAVOR, OPPOSE, UNSURE America leaving Iraq before the Iraqi people are able to defend themselves without America's help?

Until the pollsters ask that question and its answered, neither of us knows what the American people think.


Sorry, but you don't get to declare the situation to be 'unknowable' just because you didn't get the chance to write the polling questions yourself.

A reasonably close question - do you favor the US leaving Iraq on a reasonable timetable ending next year - gets strong majorities in both countries. Your splitting of hairs would not hold up to any objective analysis.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:25 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
The pollsters have yet to ask a random sample of 1,000 adult American people: Do you FAVOR, OPPOSE, UNSURE America leaving Iraq before the Iraqi people are able to defend themselves without America's help?

Until the pollsters ask that question and its answered, neither of us knows what the American people think.


Sorry, but you don't get to declare the situation to be 'unknowable' just because you didn't get the chance to write the polling questions yourself.

A reasonably close question - do you favor the US leaving Iraq on a reasonable timetable ending next year - gets strong majorities in both countries. Your splitting of hairs would not hold up to any objective analysis.

Cycloptichorn

Yes I do "get to declare the situation to be 'unknowable' [i.e., logically unknowable] just because" the pollsters did not ask:
Do you FAVOR, OPPOSE, UNSURE America leaving Iraq before the Iraqi people are able to defend themselves without America's help?

Your question is not reasonably close to mine:
Do you FAVOR, OPPOSE, UNSURE the US leaving Iraq on a reasonable timetable ending next year?

I for one would answer my question OPPOSE and your question FAVOR.

Yes, I OPPOSE leaving Iraq before the Iraqi people are able to defend themselves without America's help, while at the same time I FAVOR the US leaving Iraq on a a reasonable time table ending next year, because I assume a reasonable time table is one which includes the government of the Iraqi people deciding they have actually achieved the ability to defend their people without America's help.

In otherwords, your question is too ambiguous for its poll results to be taken seriously. It leaves the people who respond to your poll question to assume whatever they prefer to assume the words a reasonable time table mean.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 11:54 am
POLLING

The design of poll questions to produce a desired result is a well known art. The primary technique is to avoid asking questions that include qualifiers, that if included lead to a result contrary to the objective sought.

An additional method to achieve desired polling results, is the choice of the method to select the so-called random sample of those polled. For example, select at random those people who are available during a particular part of the day not selected at random. Alternatively, select at random those people who are located in neighborhoods not selected at random, or select at random those people who are pollable only by a polling method not selected at random, or select at random those people who are willing to answer ambiguous questions with a simplistic APPROVE, OPPOSE, UNSURE.

What I want to know is:

(1) What percentage of the Iraqi people FAVOR the US Military leaving Iraq before the Iraq government decides they are able to defend the Iraqi people without the US Military's help, and before the Iraq government asks the US Military to leave?

(2) What percentage of the American people FAVOR the US military leaving Iraq before the Iraq government decides they are able to defend the Iraqi people without the US Military's help, and before the Iraq government asks the US Military to leave?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 12:04 pm
ican711nm wrote:
POLLING

The design of poll questions to produce a desired result is a well known art. The primary technique is to avoid asking questions that include qualifiers, that if included lead to a result contrary to the objective sought.

An additional method to achieve desired polling results, is the choice of the method to select the so-called random sample of those polled. For example, select at random those people who are available during a particular part of the day not selected at random. Alternatively, select at random those people who are located in neighborhoods not selected at random, or select at random those people who are pollable only by a polling method not selected at random, or select at random those people who are willing to answer ambiguous questions with a simplistic APPROVE, OPPOSE, UNSURE.

What I want to know is:

(1) What percentage of the Iraqi people FAVOR the US Military leaving Iraq before the Iraq government decides they are able to defend the Iraqi people without the US Military's help, and before the Iraq government asks the US Military to leave?

(2) What percentage of the American people FAVOR the US military leaving Iraq before the Iraq government decides they are able to defend the Iraqi people without the US Military's help, and before the Iraq government asks the US Military to leave?


Somehow you just don't get it that your questions are biased to produce a desired answer, the same as you accuse other poll questions of being.

There's a reason why an AVERAGE of polls, which use questions of different wording, all support the position that the American people desire to see us out of Iraq by next year - and the Iraqis desire this too.

I've said before, people don't need you to hold them by the hand and explain to them what that means, Ican. Your own personal view of the situation is not necessary for folks to make a decision.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 01:00 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
POLLING

The design of poll questions to produce a desired result is a well known art. The primary technique is to avoid asking questions that include qualifiers, that if included lead to a result contrary to the objective sought.

An additional method to achieve desired polling results, is the choice of the method to select the so-called random sample of those polled. For example, select at random those people who are available during a particular part of the day not selected at random. Alternatively, select at random those people who are located in neighborhoods not selected at random, or select at random those people who are pollable only by a polling method not selected at random, or select at random those people who are willing to answer ambiguous questions with a simplistic APPROVE, OPPOSE, UNSURE.

What I want to know is:

(1) What percentage of the Iraqi people FAVOR the US Military leaving Iraq before the Iraq government decides they are able to defend the Iraqi people without the US Military's help, and before the Iraq government asks the US Military to leave?

(2) What percentage of the American people FAVOR the US military leaving Iraq before the Iraq government decides they are able to defend the Iraqi people without the US Military's help, and before the Iraq government asks the US Military to leave?


Somehow you just don't get it that your questions are biased to produce a desired answer, the same as you accuse other poll questions of being.

There's a reason why an AVERAGE of polls, which use questions of different wording, all support the position that the American people desire to see us out of Iraq by next year - and the Iraqis desire this too.

I've said before, people don't need you to hold them by the hand and explain to them what that means, Ican. Your own personal view of the situation is not necessary for folks to make a decision.

Cycloptichorn

What do you think is the bias in my two questions?

What do you think is the reason why "an AVERAGE of polls, which use questions of different wording, all support the position that the American people desire to see us out of Iraq by next year - and the Iraqis desire this too?"

I have the same desire! But I also have conditions under which I want that desire fulfilled!

What are your reasons for your judgment about what people need or do not need to understand and rationally answer polling questions, are more valid than my reasons for my judgment about what people need to understand and rationally answer polling questions?

What are your reasons for believing what I think is necessary for folks to make rational decisions, is not necessary?


It is my opinion that pollsters are not the embodient of unchallengeable truth. Even pollsters do not claim that.

It is my opinion that your opinion about what people don't need to make rational decisions is unsupported by any rational argument.

It is my opinion that your criticising me instead of criticising my reasons or arguments for what I advocate, are strong evidence that you are the knowing or unknowing victim of the Soros gang's doctrine: attack the advocate and not the advocate's reasons or arguments.

You have hereby been outed and that is no crime! Idea
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 01:52 pm
Quote:

It is my opinion that your criticising me instead of criticising my reasons or arguments for what I advocate, are strong evidence that you are the knowing or unknowing victim of the Soros gang's doctrine: attack the advocate and not the advocate's reasons or arguments.

You have hereby been outed and that is no crime!


I mean, who says stuff like this?

I have attacked your premise: that unless questions are worded exactly as you desire - with a clear intent to lead people to a specific answer - you claim that noone can know anything about what either the Iraqi people or the American people think about the war. That is ridiculous. There have been many polls on the matter which clearly show people's opinions.

The American public and Iraqi public do not require you, Ican to point out to them that Iraq may or may not be secure by the time we leave next year. They are well aware of this fact. Your assumption that people are idiots who cannot realize this is unsupportable.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 02:32 pm
ican wrote :

Quote:
The pollsters have yet to ask a random sample of 1,000 adult American people: Do you FAVOR, OPPOSE, UNSURE America leaving Iraq before the Iraqi people are able to defend themselves without America's help?

Until the pollsters ask that question and its answered, neither of us knows what the American people think.


imo those "simple" questions will produce "simple" answers .
it has been my experience that many people do not understand the consequences of answering "simple" questions .

i well remember when some years ago our provincial government of the day let it be known that it was ready to cut taxes AND offer a "tax dividend" (refund some taxes already paid) . of course , most citizens couldn't wait to re-elect the government and cash in a FORTY DOLLAR (!) tax dividend .
shortly thereafter the provincial government started to re-distribute the tax load and municipal governments had to pay for many things previously paid for by the provincial government .
in addition some services were either discontinued or now had to be paid for .
the end-result : most citizens saw their total provincial and municipal taxes go up and service go down . now there was a lot of howling by most citizens who said : "they never told us that the TOTAL tax might go up and that some services would no longer be paid for ! they only talked of tax-reduction and tax dividedend ! scroundels ! " .
i remember trying to explain to friends that it's next to impossible to provide the same srvices while lowering taxes - but they didn;t really want to hear the truth .

to get back to the questions of : IN or OUT ?
i think proper questioning would ask :
- are you in favour of staying in iraq ?
to do the job properly is estimated to take XX years ;
we estimate as many as XXXXX additional american soldiers may die during that time ;
we estimate the annual total cost to be $ XXXXX , and every citizens share would be about $ XXXX per year in additional taxes .

the same could be done with the question about leaving iraq .

i guess that not many governments are crazy enough to "tell it like it is" - they usually get turfed !

we had two canadian governments that got turfed/not elected for being honest with the electorate .
the joe clark conservatives had a 5 cent (!) per gallon additional gasoline
tax in their budget and didn't get re-elected .
the stanfield conservatives suggested that price and wage controls might have to be brought in .
trudeau's famous words were "mr stanfield says : zap - you are frozen !" - of course stansfeld did not get elected AND trudeau brought in wage and price controls about a year later !

imo citizens often say that they want to hear the truth , but when they do hear it , it's not always to their liking and the short-term action they are taking at the election box may bite them later on .
of course , citizens have been lied to often enough to distrust their elected representatives and governments . i guess this is another "chicken-and-egg" situation ; what came first / the lying politician or the citizen looking for a quick solution ?

i guess i'm glad i'm not a politician !
hbg
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 02:40 pm
Quote:

to get back to the questions of : IN or OUT ?
i think proper questioning would ask :
- are you in favour of staying in iraq ?
to do the job properly is estimated to take XX years ;
we estimate as many as XXXXX additional american soldiers may die during that time ;
we estimate the annual total cost to be $ XXXXX , and every citizens share would be about $ XXXX per year in additional taxes .


But who provides these estimates? Certainly not the US government. Each and every one of their estimates have been 100% wrong.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 03:04 pm
cyclo wrote :

Quote:
But who provides these estimates? Certainly not the US government. Each and every one of their estimates have been 100% wrong.


would this not be an opportunity for responsible newspapers to dig into the discrepancies , show what governments have said and also show what some of the reliable independent sources have forecasted and provide readers with an opportunity to make some judgements .
similarly , the predictions of government and other research organizations could be shown to give citizens a chance of becoming better informed .

i hear more and more of the true (older and former) reporters say , that news organizations (i guess that's a new term !) have sadly neglected their duty of digging deeply into the facts .
as someone said recently : "paris hilton gets half the front-page and some important news gets four lines on page 16 " .
newspapers , of course have to make money or they'll go under and with 24 hour news on radio and television they have a tough time digging really deeep into stories - readers get easily bored !
but that's another story .
isn't it somewhat like the : "who is going to bell the cat ?" game .
hbg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 04:26 pm
ican's comments
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

It is my opinion that your criticising me instead of criticising my reasons or arguments for what I advocate, are strong evidence that you are the knowing or unknowing victim of the Soros gang's doctrine: attack the advocate and not the advocate's reasons or arguments.

You have hereby been outed and that is no crime!

...
I have attacked your premise: that unless questions are worded exactly as you desire - with a clear intent to lead people to a specific answer - you claim that noone can know anything about what either the Iraqi people or the American people think about the war.

Malarkey! I have repeatedly said that the poll questions are too ambiguous to know from the poll results what either the Iraqi people or the American people actually think about the war.

In my previous post , I said [emphasis added]:

Quote:
What [size=25]I[/size] want to know is:

(1) What percentage of the Iraqi people FAVOR the US Military leaving Iraq before the Iraq government decides they are able to defend the Iraqi people without the US Military's help, and before the Iraq government asks the US Military to leave?

(2) What percentage of the American people FAVOR the US military leaving Iraq before the Iraq government decides they are able to defend the Iraqi people without the US Military's help, and before the Iraq government asks the US Military to leave?


That is ridiculous. There have been many polls on the matter which clearly show people's opinions.

I disagree with your evaluation and have provided my reasons for doing so.

The American public and Iraqi public do not require you, Ican to point out to them that Iraq may or may not be secure by the time we leave next year. They are well aware of this fact. Your assumption that people are idiots who cannot realize this is unsupportable.

Cycloptichorn

Neither you or I know what the American public and Iraqi public actually "require" to not misinterpret the ambiguous questions being asked of them. I am recommending a pair of questions which I think are less ambiguous than the ones they are currently being asked, and whose answers will be less likely to be misinterpreted.

I want us out of IRAQ as soon as we can get out without leaving an Iraq government unable to protect its people. I do not want us out of Iraq before the Iraq government is able to protect its people. I think more than 60% of the American people think the same way. I care about finding out whether I am correct.

You appear to not give a damn whether we leave before or after the Iraq government is able to protect its people. I guess that's why you don't care about the level of ambiguity of the present poll questions and answers.

You are free to care about what you want to care about, and I am free to care about what I want to care about.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 04:50 pm
hamburger wrote:
ican wrote :

Quote:
The pollsters have yet to ask a random sample of 1,000 adult American people: Do you FAVOR, OPPOSE, UNSURE America leaving Iraq before the Iraqi people are able to defend themselves without America's help?

Until the pollsters ask that question and its answered, neither of us knows what the American people think.


imo those "simple" questions will produce "simple" answers .
it has been my experience that many people do not understand the consequences of answering "simple" questions .

...hbg

Your point is valid. While I think it fair to say my questions are less ambiguous than the ones being asked, my questions are not free of ambiguity. I've not stated an estimate of the cost to the Iraqi people and to the American people (i.e., in lives and money) of staying until the Iraq governent can protect its people, nor have I estimated that cost of leaving before the Iraq governent can protect its people.

Just because I think that the total cost of staying until is much less than the total cost of leaving before does not necessarily mean my estimate is correct.

Thinking it over, it is obvious to me that I want us to stay until no matter what is the possible cost, because I am convinced by the history of middle eastern events and others events that leaving before will exact a cost not bearable by humanity much less by Iraqis and Americans. Obviously others will disagree.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 05:29 pm
Just an interjection from another thread on another forum:



Watched the television show, "Criminal Minds," which is about profilers. Last night's offering was about an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist -- who was pushed over the edge when a bomb in a market place killed his 8 year old son -- and it was fascinating. While the basic premise was that we have to watch out for these people, there was a rather strong message that the way prisoners are treated is counter productive.

When the lead profiler first encountered the Islamic terrorist, he was nude and pushed onto to the floor. Since the actor playing the terrorist was powerfully built and had great presence, the character took on the aspect of caged power (notice, I chose not to write animal). The profiler first allowed him to wear clothes. Basically, the profiler outwitted the prisoner rather than brutalizing him in an attempt to break him. The script actually afforded some respect to the prisoner and might make a good training film for members of the armed forces.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 07:15 am
For U.S. and Sadr, Wary Cooperation

Quote:
BAGHDAD -- U.S. troops are conducting security sweeps in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City for the first time in three years, part of a revamped plan to pacify the capital. Yet the Mahdi Army militia of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has not risen up to fight them, despite U.S. raids on militia members' homes and growing Sunni attacks on Shiites.

"Until now, our leader has ordered us to keep quiet," explained Ayad al-Khaby, a local official in Sadr's organization. "This is in order for the security plan to succeed."

After four years of hostility, Sadr and the Americans are cooperating uneasily as the United States and Iraq attempt to tame Baghdad's sectarian violence. American officials, who in recent months described Sadr's Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias as the biggest threat to Iraq's stability, now praise the Shiite cleric.

The collaboration represents a remarkable shift for two adversaries who control the largest armies in Iraq and who fought some of the fiercest battles since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

For Sadr, it is the latest stage in an evolution from populist cleric to guerrilla fighter to political kingmaker and now to power broker. In the early months of the occupation, U.S. officials dismissed Sadr as irrelevant to Iraq's future. Today, they view him as a political catalyst who can help keep Iraq together -- or implode it.

"We're very encouraged by what we're seeing on the ground right now in Sadr City," said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the U.S. military's chief spokesman in Baghdad. "There is a tremendous amount of cooperation and dialogue ongoing. It's proven to be very beneficial to both sides."

It is a tenuous cooperation that could collapse at any moment. U.S. troops walk a thin line between peace and war in Sadr City, a sprawling jumble of narrow streets, tan buildings and crowded markets. Each day tests the tolerance of Sadr and his fighters, who are widely believed to operate death squads. U.S. commanders concede that their troops may face isolated attacks.

"They are an occupation force. We refuse their presence totally," said Mohammad Abu Haider, a Mahdi Army commander who has battled Americans. "Their ultimate goal is to destroy the Sadr trend."

On Thursday, gunmen ambushed the convoy of Sadr City's mayor, Rahim al-Darraji, seriously wounding him and killing two of his bodyguards. Darraji, a Sadr appointee, has been negotiating with U.S. and Iraqi government officials over the role of U.S. troops in the security clampdown.

A few hours earlier, at a luncheon with Western journalists, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., the U.S. commander in charge of Baghdad, spoke about Darraji.

"We're in Sadr City, working closely with the mayor and it's been completely permissive. It's a collaboration," he said.

Publicly, Sadr has criticized the U.S. presence inside his stronghold. He is a fierce nationalist who has long demanded a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and his authority derives in large part from his opposition to the occupation. But privately, he has ordered his militiamen to lie low no matter how much they are provoked by U.S. forces, according to interviews with Sadr representatives and fighters.

The absence of full-blown resistance against U.S. troops and the recent decline in the number of bodies found in the capital with signs of torture, usually attributed to the Mahdi Army, suggest that Sadr still controls the bulk of his forces, even as U.S. intelligence officials assert that his grip over the Mahdi Army is slipping.

Such murders have dropped by a third during the first month of the security plan, Fil said.

"If the sayyid says it is in the best interest to rise up against the Americans, we will rise. If the sayyid says there's no interest, we won't rise," said Haider, using the honorific for a descendant of the prophet Muhammad. "All the people in this city follow Sayyid Moqtada al-Sadr."

After the invasion, Sadr channeled the growing disenchantment with the occupation, attracting poor, young and dispossessed Shiites into his militia. In 2004, Sadr's forces staged two major uprisings against U.S. forces. Since then, the Mahdi Army has repeatedly attacked U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces.

Even as his gunmen fought, Sadr sought political influence, focusing on the January 2005 elections. Today, his loyalists control 30 seats in the Iraqi parliament and four ministries. His support enabled Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a conservative Shiite, to enter office.

Despite intense U.S. pressure, Maliki refused to take stern action against his benefactor, preferring a softer approach. He publicly rebuked American raids into Sadr City. In October, he ordered U.S. forces to lift a blockade of the area.

According to two Maliki aides, the prime minister proposed to U.S. officials that, as a key component of the new security plan, he would persuade Sadr to order his militiamen to stand down. In return, he asked U.S. forces to focus their efforts on combating Sunni insurgents, which the Shiite-led government views as the roots of the sectarian violence. U.S. commanders have said publicly they do not favor one sect over the other.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military leader in Iraq, said in an interview that Maliki reached out to Sadr and his advisers. U.S. and Iraqi commanders promised Sadr's representatives that they would enter Sadr City in "a respectable manner," he said.

Sadr's cooperation "certainly has been a factor in the way we've been able to go into Sadr City, this early, this quickly," Fil said. "We were planning to go in later." He described the ongoing sweeps in Sadr City as "gentle, cordon-and-knock type operations."

The United States is funding 16 reconstruction projects inside Sadr City, although some were launched before the new security plan, said Daniel Speckhard, charge d'affaires at the U.S. Embassy.

"The Americans are wise this time," said Wamidh Nadhmi, a political analyst. "When they first arrived, they didn't consult or have a dialogue with Sadr when he was the most important person in Iraq. Now, they are moving gradually, step by step, not very provocative as they had done in 2004."

Sadr has other motives for allowing U.S. soldiers into Sadr City, U.S. military officials said. In recent months he has become increasingly concerned about his political and religious image, because the Mahdi Army has been linked to torture and other crimes. He has purged militiamen from his fold and threatened to excommunicate others. He has also ordered that his photos be taken down from government ministry offices he controls to discourage officials from justifying their actions by invoking his name.

U.S. intelligence officials say he is competing for authority with extremist figures inside the Mahdi Army who oppose his decision to join mainstream politics. By allowing U.S. forces to enter his stronghold and arrest his militiamen, Sadr appears to be ridding his army of rogue fighters. In the past six months, nearly 700 of the "real extremist elements" of the Mahdi Army have been taken into custody and detained, including those who have committed death squad killings, Caldwell said.

Petraeus offered another reason for why the Mahdi Army has stood down so far. Many of Sadr's advisers and Mahdi Army leaders have fled Sadr City to evade arrest, leaving rank-and-file fighters rudderless.

Despite the positive signs, U.S. generals remain skeptical.

"We have to be very cautious and expect there may be some setbacks," Fil said, acknowledging that the Mahdi Army may be waiting for an opportunity to attack.

U.S. military officials are keeping a close eye on Sadr's whereabouts. They say he is in neighboring Iran, but his followers insist he is in Iraq.

Any success in Sadr City, and other parts of Baghdad, hinges on not provoking Sadr and his loyalists. That is why, Petraeus said, it was important for Iraqi soldiers and police the other day to stop a suicide bomber from entering Sadr City.

Sunni insurgents, he said, "will continue to try to create sensational attacks that could cause people to say, 'See, we need to have the Sadr militia to protect us again.' "

But the collaboration remains controversial. The U.S. military is building a garrison inside a police station to house U.S. and Iraqi troops on the fringes of Sadr City. It will become part of a constellation of neighborhood security outposts -- the linchpin of the new plan to regain control of the streets.

"It's a wrong idea. Sadr City has faced a lot of violations by the American forces," said Falah Shanshal, a member of parliament in Sadr's bloc. "There is no reason for the existence of such a base or the existence of Americans in the city."

Haider, the Mahdi Army commander, said: "We always keep our eyes on the occupiers. We are never away from our duty."

0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 07:20 am
Roadside Bomb Kills 4 U.S. Troops in Baghdad

Quote:
BAGHDAD, March 15 -- Four American soldiers were killed and two others were wounded Thursday when a roadside bomb exploded near their vehicles in eastern Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

The soldiers were returning from search operations when one roadside bomb detonated, then another. The second bomb caused the casualties, the military said.


4 U.S. Soldiers Killed In Roadside Bombing

Quote:
CBS/AP) A roadside bomb exploded Thursday in eastern Baghdad, killing four U.S. soldiers and wounding two others, the U.S. military said.

The attack began when one bomb went off as a U.S. unit was returning from a search operation in the mostly Shiite area, the military said. Moments later, a second bomb exploded, killing and wounding the soldiers.

A demolition team that searched the site after the attack found an explosively formed projectile, a type of high-tech bomb which the U.S. military believes comes from Iran. The device was detonated by the team.

Earlier Thursday, the military said a U.S. soldier was killed the day before in combat in Anbar province, west of Baghdad.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 12:51 pm
just started reading : "jerusalem - one city , three faiths" by karen armstrong (see below for interview with k armstrong - a former nun !

it is a fascinating and scholarly book dealing not only with jerusalem but with the history of the middle-east going back to canaan and saul's kingdom of israel .
it helps me to understand why both the muslims and israelis feel that they've been dealt a bad hand throughout history ... and i have difficulty deciding who got the worst of it : the muslims or the israelis .
but i do understand that both feel very strongly that it is their land and why they are not willing to give it up to invading forces from the west .
hbg

link :
...JERUSALEM , ONE CITY , THREE FAITHS - BY KAREN ARMSTRONG...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 05:29 pm
A Strong Fiscal Framework for Iraq
By Robert M. Kimmitt
Washington Post
Friday, March 16, 2007; Page A21

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi will host a major international conference at the United Nations today to discuss "The International Compact With Iraq," an ambitious framework for transforming the Iraqi economy. This initiative is designed to help achieve within five years Iraq's vision of a stable and prosperous nation underpinned by a self-sustaining economy.

As President Bush's envoy to the international compact, I traveled to Baghdad last July for the launch of the initiative and later attended preparatory meetings in the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. The compact to be presented today calls for Iraq to commit to specific economic benchmarks, including a series of reform efforts such as transparency in the hydrocarbon sector, private-sector development, investment promotion and a restructuring of the banking sector. In turn, donors will provide technical assistance, debt forgiveness and other financial support to help reintegrate Iraq into the international community and complete its reconstruction.

Iraq is committed to economic reform and has met the guidelines set out by the International Monetary Fund since 2004 to encourage growth. The government has implemented tighter monetary policies to control inflation, liberalized official fuel prices and imports, limited government spending on employee wages, improved a fiscally unsustainable pension law and made important strides in developing an electronic payments system to reduce dependence on cash transactions. These changes have been possible because Iraqi leaders have worked diligently to put their country's financial house in order. They also demonstrate that Iraq will work to implement the agreements in the compact.

It is promising that the reforms enacted thus far have been successful. The IMF estimates the growth of Iraq's economy at 3 percent over the past year, with oil revenue totaling $29.5 billion. The Iraqi cabinet's recent approval of a new hydrocarbons framework law is an important development in strengthening the economy. This legislation is critical because it shares oil revenue proportionally among all Iraqi citizens. It also sets the ground rules for managing oil production and sends a strong signal of economic liberalization to the world. When it is passed by the Iraqi legislature, this law will enable government leaders to negotiate with foreign companies to open up investment in the country's oil sector.

Another critical component to rebuilding Iraq's economy is ensuring that this revenue gets to the people. Now that Iraq's parliament has passed the budget for 2007, Iraqi officials have emphasized the importance of using the $10 billion set aside for capital investment and reconstruction to bring tangible benefits to citizens. To encourage budget accountability, they have stipulated that ministries and provinces that fail to perform by midyear may have a portion of their funding transferred. Iraq held a conference earlier this month to outline these new budget procedures for approximately 200 officials from both the central government and the provinces, including cabinet ministers, ministerial officials, heads of anti-corruption bodies, provincial governors and council chairmen.

The United States is working to support these efforts through initiatives such as the recent appointment of Ambassador Tim Carney as coordinator for economic transition in Iraq. The U.S. government hosted a budget execution conference last week for coalition provincial reconstruction team members to familiarize coalition advisers with Iraq's new budget process. President Bush has already announced an expansion of these teams, which work in the provinces to help Iraqis build their government. Bringing these efforts together will harmonize U.S. and coalition technical assistance with Iraq's budget objectives.

The challenges ahead are great, but today at the United Nations the government of Iraq will take an important step forward in cooperation with the international community. Iraqi officials have demonstrated their dedication to undertaking the hard work necessary to successfully carry out this initiative. This framework will enable Iraq to establish an economic foundation built upon good governance, the rule of law, a solid budgetary structure and strong, credible institutions.

The writer is deputy secretary of the U.S. Treasury.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 05:32 pm
Shiite cleric urges resistance of U.S.

Quote:
BAGHDAD - After weeks of cooperation with a new security plan, radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr decried U.S. forces as occupiers Friday and called on his followers to "shout 'No, No America!'" in a sign of resurgent anger and opposition.

Thousands of Shiites flooded from the mosque where al-Sadr's statement was read by a preacher at Friday prayers, spilling into the streets of the Sadr City slum to protest the two-week-old American military presence there. The U.S. military says al-Sadr has gone to Iran.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 09:14 am
http://buckfush.com/images/George_Bush_War_Record.jpg

Amen
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 10:01 am
Chlorine gas sickens 356 in Iraq bombing

Chlorine gas sickens 356 in Iraq bombing By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 10 minutes ago



Quote:
Three suicide bombers driving chlorine-laden trucks struck in the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Anbar province, killing two policemen and forcing about 350 Iraqi civilians and six U.S. troops to seek treatment for exposure to the gas, the military said Saturday.

The attacks came after back-to-back bombings last month released chlorine gas, prompting the U.S. military to warn that insurgents are adopting new tactics in a campaign to spread panic.

Just after 4 p.m. Friday, a driver detonated explosives in a pickup truck northeast of Ramadi, wounding one U.S. service member and one Iraqi civilian, the military said in a statement.

That was followed by a similar explosion involving a dump truck south of Fallujah in Amiriyah that killed two policemen and left as many as 100 local citizens showing signs of chlorine exposure, with symptoms ranging from minor skin and lung irritations to vomiting, the military said.

Less than 10 miles away, another suicide bomber detonated a dump truck containing a 200-gallon chlorine tank rigged with explosives at 7:13 p.m., also south of Fallujah in the Albu Issa tribal region, the military said. U.S. forces responded to the attack and found about 250 local civilians, including seven children, suffering from symptoms related to chlorine exposure, according to the statement.

Insurgents have detonated three other trucks carrying chlorine canisters since late January.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 02:50 pm
revel wrote:
Roadside Bomb Kills 4 U.S. Troops in Baghdad

Quote:
BAGHDAD, March 15 -- Four American soldiers were killed and two others were wounded Thursday when a roadside bomb exploded near their vehicles in eastern Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

The soldiers were returning from search operations when one roadside bomb detonated, then another. The second bomb caused the casualties, the military said.


4 U.S. Soldiers Killed In Roadside Bombing

Quote:
CBS/AP) A roadside bomb exploded Thursday in eastern Baghdad, killing four U.S. soldiers and wounding two others, the U.S. military said.

The attack began when one bomb went off as a U.S. unit was returning from a search operation in the mostly Shiite area, the military said. Moments later, a second bomb exploded, killing and wounding the soldiers.

A demolition team that searched the site after the attack found an explosively formed projectile, a type of high-tech bomb which the U.S. military believes comes from Iran. The device was detonated by the team.

Earlier Thursday, the military said a U.S. soldier was killed the day before in combat in Anbar province, west of Baghdad.


Are you trying to say that these are two seperate attacks?
These are two reports of the same incident,and even you should have seen that.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 11:17:31