9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2007 03:40 pm
Joe(death of Dadullah)Nation, We all know this is only a temporary vacuum in the leadership; they'll have a replacement before we can say "Dadullah is dead."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2007 06:31 pm
So much for diplomacy between the US and Iran.


Iranian president leads anti-U.S. rally
By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer
28 minutes ago



DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Iran's president led a raucous anti-American rally on Sunday in this tightly controlled U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf, a day after a low-key visit by Vice President Dick Cheney aimed at countering Tehran's influence in the region.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a cheering crowd that America was to blame for creating instability and robbing the region of its wealth.

"We are telling you to leave the region. This is for your benefit and the benefit of your nation," Ahmadinejad shouted to the crowd of thousands at a soccer stadium. "The nations of the region can no longer take you forcing yourself on them. The nations of the region know better how to create peace and security."

Ahmadinejad's visit was the first by an Iranian head of state to this Sunni-led Arab country since its independence in 1971 and his rally was remarkable in a country where political parties are banned and power is held solely by tribal families.

Cheney's quiet visit Saturday to the Emirates, which hosts three American military bases, was part of a tour of the region to try to curb Iran's growing influence. On Friday, from an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, Cheney warned Iran that the U.S. and its allies will keep it from restricting sea traffic as well as from developing nuclear weapons.
0 Replies
 
miguelito21
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2007 09:04 pm
I'm sorry to repost this, but it seems my questions have gone unnoticed, although C_I did use the link i provided.


Sorry i couldnt read the 120 pages of posts and articles

smthg struck me on p.117 tho, one article said :

many Sunnis are increasingly hostile to al-Qa'ida in Iraq. At the same time, the Sunni community as a whole continues to support armed resistance to the US-led occupation.

Which made me think about this article i had seen

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/248.php?nid=&id=&pnt=248&lb=brme


Do you guys know who performs these bombings (suicide or not) we often hear about? AQ, or armed resistants ?

If the latter, how can we associate random killing of innocent civilians with armed resistance?

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

heres what a republican poster on another forum had to say about the Iraq war :

Is it possible that the war in Iraq might be lost one day? Yes, thanks to the Democrats and the Liberal media not George W. Bush.

Who wanted this war to end the day we started getting into hard times? Who wants to cut and run and who had to bribe others in the house to a deadline by adding 25 billion with a "B" in pork to get support and who is now trying to peace meal funds to a war that our troops are in right now?[/ii]

Who, in ur opinion,would be to blame for a US defeat, or pullout without pacification of Iraq?


Thanks a lot.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2007 09:12 pm
In a civil war, it's sunnis against sunnis, shias against sunnis, and kurds against shias and sunnis. There are others from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt that freely come through the borders of Iraq to reak havoc in addition to all the internal problems. The US ain't gonna stop the violence with 30,000 more troops; that's insane to think they can. They're all crazy.
0 Replies
 
miguelito21
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 02:56 am
Yes, i'm aware hat all "sides" are part of the violence, but i was asking about a specific aspect of the violence in Iraq, which are (suicidal or not) terrorist attacks against civilians.

from what i understood, Iraqi sunnis and Iraqi shiis tend to form militias to protect their neighborhoods and sometimes to try to gain control of one, but the random killings of civilians are said to be done mostly by foreign terrorist groups like Al Qaeda for example.

Here's a quote from a blogger that pretty much sums up what i mean :

I've been hammering away on this issue by repeatedly emphasizing the fact that what al Qaeda is doing is not an example of sectarian violence and, therefore, is not part of the civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. Yes, al Qaeda consists of Sunnis, but, no, they are not killing Shiites out of a sense of revenge or in an effort to defeat them in a civil war. Instead, they are killing Shiite civilians to goad vengeful Shiite militias into once again murdering Sunnis in large numbers. That is, they are trying to re-ignite (not participating in) the civil war that has decreased in intensity since the troop surge began. If they succeed in re-igniting that civil war, they know that Americans will become predictably demoralized and start saying things like "this war is lost." They also know that the Sunnis of the Anbar Province will have no choice but to turn to al Qaeda for protection from the enraged Shiite militias. That's their nefarious and unbelievably effective plan.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/05/democrats-are-lying-about-war-in-iraq.html

So I'd like to have the opinion of some ppl here, as i see many are better informed than me.

Thanks
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 04:07 am
If AQ is thinking the Sunnis will turn to them for protection they are as far out of touch with reality as our president. Currently the Sunnis are fighting AQ. They don't like them. They didn't like them under Saddam Hussein.

Bush's rhetoric about AQ taking over Iraq is something only the ignorant and stupid will believe. AQ has a very small population in Iraq and the idea they will defeat the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds is stupid beyond belief. What they want to achieve, and they are doing it very well, is to create instability and chaos. They want to bring Iran into the conflict and try to get America to attack her. This will create more conflict and instability.

So far Bush has shown an admirable talent to do whatever it takes to make AQ stronger and to create more hatred for America among the Muslims. This, in turn, creates more terrorist. More terrorist give the neocons a better excuse to continue our occupation of Iraq and possibly expand it into Iran. In this manner we will have a permanent presence in the oilfields and a way to insure we have control over "our" oil in the Middle East.
0 Replies
 
miguelito21
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 05:42 am
Hmm, I see. But then whats the strategic interest for AQ in increased chaos and violence? Surely they have something material to gain from it, what is it?


Quote:
AQ has a very small population in Iraq and the idea they will defeat the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds is stupid beyond belief.


Well apparently the idea is not that they seek to defeat everybody, but rather to sow chaos so that Iraqi Sunnis have no choice but turn to them for protection, which is at least plausible, whether they like them or not, and thus create an alliance, even if said alliance would be purely military.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 05:55 am
miguelito21 wrote:
Hmm, I see. But then whats the strategic interest for AQ in increased chaos and violence? Surely they have something material to gain from it, what is it?


Quote:
AQ has a very small population in Iraq and the idea they will defeat the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds is stupid beyond belief.


Well apparently the idea is not that they seek to defeat everybody, but rather to sow chaos so that Iraqi Sunnis have no choice but turn to them for protection, which is at least plausible, whether they like them or not, and thus create an alliance, even if said alliance would be purely military.


The Sunnis don't need AQ for protection. They have Saudi Arabia. SA has already threaten to send troops into Iraq to support the Sunnis if we leave.

SA is very fearful of the union of the Iraqi and Iranian Shiites. They see this as a greater threat than AQ. When Saddam Hussein was in power he kept the lid on the Shiites and was a counterbalance to Iran. Bush's invasion of Iraq changed that and bought about the union of the two Shiite populations.

All AQ has to do is ferment war between the two groups and sit back and watch the whole Middle East explode. Once chaos is created only the Gods know what the outcome will be. AQ have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

You see how Bush played into the terrorist hands? He isn't fighting terrorism, he's creating it.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 08:48 am
The more I consider all this violence between Sunni and Shiite, its beginning to make sense. I am so ignorant of the Sunni/Shiite situation in general that it is taking me awhile for it to make sense to me. I don't understand it all. But I read a little about the differences between Sunni and Shiite the other day (for the first time I am ashamed to say) and it seems the majority of the world's Muslims are Sunni including the Saudis and Bin Laden. I thought most of this violence was just the Sunni being upset because they are in the minority and are basically squeezed out in the political process. I think that is still a major part of it, but apparently it goes deeper than that.

Q. What's the Difference Between Shia and Sunni Muslims?


It seems the Sunni the world over have had an interest in Iraq since the Shiite came to power and that is why they are funding the Sunni to fight the Shiite. The Shiite has an interest in keeping the US in Iraq to help them fight the Sunni. Only they were mostly fighting Al Sadre (spell?) instead of Sunni since the surge began until just most recently. Probably why the Iraqi Parliament finally wants us out.

This cannot be won by US. How in the world can we tell who the enemy is when it seems everyone is fighting and creating violence to the destruction of Iraq?

I know I am probably not saying anything of value since probably everyone has been aware of these things way before now.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 09:02 am
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 09:11 am
Well, good luck Iraq! They're going on a two month vacation this summer, and their government has not made progress on any of the important issues to settle the violence. Only Bush and Petraeus have faith something will happen - while our soldiers get killed and maimed, and we spend two billion for every week we're there. What a waste!
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 09:51 am
revel wrote:
The more I consider all this violence between Sunni and Shiite, its beginning to make sense. I am so ignorant of the Sunni/Shiite situation in general that it is taking me awhile for it to make sense to me. I don't understand it all. But I read a little about the differences between Sunni and Shiite the other day (for the first time I am ashamed to say) and it seems the majority of the world's Muslims are Sunni including the Saudis and Bin Laden. I thought most of this violence was just the Sunni being upset because they are in the minority and are basically squeezed out in the political process. I think that is still a major part of it, but apparently it goes deeper than that.

Q. What's the Difference Between Shia and Sunni Muslims?


It seems the Sunni the world over have had an interest in Iraq since the Shiite came to power and that is why they are funding the Sunni to fight the Shiite. The Shiite has an interest in keeping the US in Iraq to help them fight the Sunni. Only they were mostly fighting Al Sadre (spell?) instead of Sunni since the surge began until just most recently. Probably why the Iraqi Parliament finally wants us out.

This cannot be won by US. How in the world can we tell who the enemy is when it seems everyone is fighting and creating violence to the destruction of Iraq?

I know I am probably not saying anything of value since probably everyone has been aware of these things way before now.

If you'd like a good article on the differece between the Shiite and Sunnis and how it fits into the Iraq debacle today read this.

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/20070323_calling_out_idiot_america/
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 10:38 am
xingu, Thanks for the link; it shows how uninformed I am about the "details" of the problems in Iraq, but I have a pretty good "feel" for the general problems between the sects and outside influence. As the article points out, our government representatives are ignorant on these important issues, and they're the ones screwing up the works even more. It's scary!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 11:06 am
What do you think about this pentagon action to deny our soldiers access to websites?

US blocks soldiers from websites
By Rob Watson
BBC defence and security correspondent

The US military is to block troops from using YouTube and MySpace and 11 other popular websites for sharing photos, video clips and messages.
The decision could stop thousands of soldiers from communicating with friends and loved ones.

For many US soldiers serving overseas YouTube and other similar websites are a popular way of keeping in touch.

But according to US reports, the Pentagon has decided to block access to such sites for technical reasons.

Security concerns

It says accessing and sending video across the internet takes up a lot of bandwidth and slows down the military's computer system.

And not surprisingly perhaps, there are also security concerns.


The cyberspace battle space was not one that we were particularly operating well in
Lt Col Christopher Garver, US Army


The block on accessing such websites will not affect those soldiers with their own personal computers - though of course they are few and far between in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is a certain irony to the Pentagon's reported decision.

It only recently started posting its own videos on YouTube showing soldiers in action in Iraq in a move designed to reach out to a younger audience and to show the successes of the US military.

Story from BBC NEWS:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 11:24 am
Quote:

"Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq's declared oil production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a draft American government report. Using an average of $50 a barrel, the report said the discrepancy was valued at $5 million to $15 million daily. The report does not give a final conclusion on what happened to the missing fraction of the roughly two million barrels pumped by Iraq each day, but the findings are sure to reinforce longstanding suspicions that smugglers, insurgents and corrupt officials control significant parts of the country's oil industry." (NY Times)


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/world/middleeast/12oil.html?ex=1336622400&en=034ced4a02a3dcd3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Nice, this is the sort of thing which is just awesome.

Maybe if the Bush administration believed in overseeing their own endeavor with any sort of attention to such matters, things in Iraq wouldn't have gone the way they have...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 11:31 am
Bush is not capable of doing the right thing no matter how many expert advisers he has. If he doesn't like what's said by the expert, he just gets rid of them to find somebody that agrees with him.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 12:13 pm
Quote:
Maybe if the Bush administration believed in overseeing their own endeavor....


OVERSIGHT?????

That's a dirty word with this administration. That's tantamount to treason.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 02:00 pm
Terrorism wrote:

http://terrorism.about.com/od/groupsleader1/p/AlQaedainIraq.htm
Al Qaeda in Iraq -- A profile of Sunni jihadist organization Al Qaeda in Iraq
From Amy Zalman, Ph.D.,
Name: Al Qaeda in Iraq

"Al Qaeda in Iraq" is a shortening of the organization's original name Tanzim Qaidat Al Jihad fi Bilad Al Rafidin: Organization of Qaidat Al Jihad in the Land of Two Rivers. Iraq is called the land between two rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris.

There has been considerable speculation about the name of the organization and how it was arrived at.

According to Egyptian journalist Abd Al Rahim Ali, the name "Qaida Al Jihad" is interesting because it reveals the roots of the joint organization formed in 2001 when Al Qaida head Osama bin Laden and Al Jihad of Egypt head Ayman Al Zawahiri joined forces to create "Qaida Al Jihad."

In the view of the U.S. State Department the name is "understood to mean the base of organized jihadist operations in Iraq" (The word "al qaeda" means "base"). This name was given by Jordanian born Abd al Musab Al Zarqawi, who assumed leadership in late 2004, after pledging allegiance to bin Laden.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 02:02 pm
firstcoastnews wrote:

Shiite sacred mosque explosion in Samarra
[Search argument "Samarra Mosque explosion."]
...
In Baghdad, National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie blamed religious zealots such as the al-Qaida terror network, telling Al-Arabiya television that the attack was an attempt "to pull Iraq toward civil war."

The country's most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, sent instructions to his followers forbidding attacks on Sunni mosques, especially the major ones in Baghdad. He called for seven days of mourning, his aides said.
...
President Jalal Talabani condemned the attack and called for restraint, saying the attack was designed to sabotage talks on a government of national unity following the Dec. 15 parliamentary election.


CNN wrote:

Capture of al-Qaeda mastermind of Golden Mosque explosion
[Search argument "Al-Qaeda responsible for Samarra Mosque Explosion."]
...
Abu Qudama operated under terrorist cell leader Haitham al-Badri.

Al-Badri was "a known terrorist," a member of Ansar al-Sunna before he joined terror group al Qaeda in Iraq, al-Rubaie said.

However, Iraqi authorities "were not aware of his being the mastermind behind the golden mosque explosion" until Abu Qudama's arrest, al-Rubaie said.
"The sole reason behind his action was to drive a wedge between the Shiites and Sunnis and to ignite and trigger a sectarian war in this country," al-Rubaie said, referring to al-Badri.
…
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 02:38 pm
reading further from the report cited by ican and
dated " JUNE , 28 , 2006 " :

Quote:
On Tuesday, the government freed 450 prisoners from Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad as part of that national reconciliation plan.

None of the prisoners had been convicted of any crime,
==============================================
al-Rubaie, Iraqi national security adviser, told CNN.
=====================================
So far, Iraq has released more than 2,700 prisoners under the program and plans one more release this month, a Justice Ministry official told CNN.

Meanwhile, a lawyer for Hussein, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, said Tuesday the former dictator has no more chance of getting a fair trial in August than he does now in Baghdad.

"You can't have a fair trial when your lawyers are getting killed, when you can't investigate your case, and you can't go forward," Ramsey said. (Read Ramsey's comments)



my question is a simple one :
what improvements have taken place in iraq between "JUNE 28 2006" and today , "MAY 14 , 2007" ?
hbg
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 07/26/2025 at 03:54:20