9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 02:15 pm
That's not only a conservative number on the low side, but why isn't anybody questioning Bushco on this issue of lost Iraqi lives that seems to only get worse? Aren't we supposed to be there to help Iraq's security? What other country would deem this "progress?"
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 02:19 pm
Cice, Cyclo, I always post IBC's higher counts.
Quote:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 02:29 pm
It doesn't matter. Their 'higher' counts are still known to be overly conservative b/c of the methodology used. Though I commend you for using the bigger overly conservative numbers.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 02:37 pm
I look at it this way; at least there are numbers that are produced - even though many understand they are conservative on the low side. Depending on the person using those numbers, they will translate those numbers to argue their own subjective viewpoints about the war in Iraq.

I find that totally acceptable.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 05:45 pm
Among other conclusions, the analysts found:

• Establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a long, steep and probably turbulent challenge. They said that contributions could be made by 4 million Iraqi exiles and Iraq's impoverished, underemployed middle class. But they noted that opposition parties would need sustained economic, political and military support.

• Al-Qaida would see the invasion as a chance to accelerate its attacks, and the lines between al-Qaida and other terrorist groups "could become blurred." In a weak spot in the analysis, one paper said that the risk of terror attacks would spike after the invasion and slow over the next three to five years. However, the State Department recently found that attacks last year alone rose sharply.

• Groups in Iraq's deeply divided society would become violent, unless stopped by the occupying force. "Score settling would occur throughout Iraq between those associated with Saddam's regime and those who have suffered most under it," one report stated.

• Iraq's neighbors would jockey for influence and Iranian leaders would try to shape the post-Saddam era to demonstrate Tehran's importance in the region. The less Tehran felt threatened by U.S. actions, the analysts said, "the better the chance that they could cooperate in the postwar period."

• Postwar Iraq would face significant economic challenges, having few resources beyond oil. Analysts predicted that Iraq's large petroleum resources would make economic reconstruction easier, but they didn't anticipate that continued fighting and sabotage would drag down oil production.

• Military action to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would not cause other governments in the region to give up such programs.

As numerous investigations have found, the intelligence agencies of the United States and its allies were wrong about Iraq's supposed weapons programs.

The report is the latest chapter in the Intelligence Committee's ongoing investigation into the prewar Iraq intelligence. Because committee members couldn't agree on clear conclusions about the postwar predictions, they saved their analyses for appendices attached to the report.

"The most chilling and prescient warning from the intelligence community prior to the war was that the American invasion would bring about instability in Iraq that would be exploited by Iran and al-Qaida," They said the reports weren't based on intelligence information, but instead were speculation from experts in and out of government.

"They were no more authoritative than the many other educated opinions that were available in the same time frame," the Republicans wrote.

___

On the Net:

Senate Intelligence Committee: http://intelligence.senate.gov/index.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 01:37 pm
"We are there because the security of this nation depends on a successful outcome," Vice President Dick Cheney told U.S. Military Academy graduates Saturday in West Point, N.Y.

If what Cheney is even close to factual, why is it that their project called Iraq has increased terrorism around the world, and situations there seem to get worse and worse every day, week, month and year we are involved in this quagmire? It's now four years and counting. Can't they see the futility of their rhetoric?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 05:06 pm
chancellor gordon brown - britain's prime minister to take office june 27 -
has admitted to mistakes in the iraq invasion .
i wonder what point of view our a2k friends in britain have of chancellor brown ; what is the likelihood of a change of course in iraq ?
hbg



Quote:
Brown admits Iraq mistakes made
Chancellor Gordon Brown has admitted the government has made mistakes over its handling of the situation in Iraq.
Speaking at a Labour Party hustings meeting in Bristol, Mr Brown said it was a divisive issue for the nation.

He said the government and others had fallen short when it came to rebuilding Iraq's economy after the war.

Mr Brown, who becomes PM on 27 June, said economic activity, employment and security were key to achieving peace.


'Economic deprivation'
He spoke candidly about the government's failures in Iraq during a Labour question and answer session with trade unionists at the meeting.

Mr Brown said: "There's massive unemployment in Iraq and that is a failure on our part, a failure on the part of those who've been in Iraq, that there is still so much economic deprivation and people are not in jobs."

Mr Brown said developing the economy and political system in Iraq was key.

"I see the next stage as us getting to a position where there is security, so our troops can move to an "overwatch position", getting economic development so that people have jobs and have got economic prosperity.

"And getting the political system sorted out so a democracy is fully functioning. Let us not deny that this has been a divisive issue."

Speaking later at the Hay Festival, in mid Wales, he said he took "collective responsibility" for the decision to go to war with Iraq and reiterated that it had "clearly divided the country."

'Peaceful settlement'

Earlier in Bristol he was asked if he could rule out military action over Iran.

Mr Brown said multilateral action and economic sanctions were the best ways to deal with the situation.

The chancellor, who has not previously elaborated on his view that sanctions against Iran were working, said: "We want a peaceful settlement to the Iran issue."

It was "totally wrong" for countries to defy the international community and to start stockpiling nuclear weapons, he added.

"What we don't want is a situation where we move from North Korea to Iran to African countries, where we have no control. I think multilateral pressure is the right thing to do."

The government has been careful not to give unequivocal assurances since former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said military action was "inconceivable" in November 2004.

Suggestions that US anger over his stance contributed to his removal from the job in a reshuffle last year were strongly denied.

Enrichment activities

In February Mr Blair said that diplomacy, not military action, was the best way to resolve the stand-off over Iran's nuclear programme.

He told the BBC he was not aware of any plans to attack Iran and said the only viable solution was a political one.

But he said he could not "absolutely predict every set of circumstances".

Conservative leader David Cameron warned earlier this week that although military action could have devastating consequences, it should not be ruled out.

The UN Security Council has passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspends all enrichment activities.

The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in a report on Wednesday that Tehran was stepping up enrichment and obstructing inspections.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of he IAEA, said it might be too late to stop Iran entirely and the focus should be on preventing large-scale enrichment - a policy rejected by US and UK diplomats.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran will not be deterred from pursuing its nuclear goals and insists that it is co-operating with the IAEA.

Relations between the UK and Iran hit a low point when 15 Royal Navy personnel based on HMS Cornwall were seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guards on 23 March in the northern Gulf.


source :
A NEW BRITISH PRIME MINISTER ... AND A NEW SOUNDBITE ?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 05:13 pm
U.S. deaths near grim Memorial Day mark

U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus on Saturday acknowledged the increase in casualties as a result of the American surge in forces to regain control of Baghdad.

"We're doing heavy fighting. This is a fight. There's a war on out there," he told reporters at al-Asad Airbase in western Iraq.

General Petraeus is supposed to be one of the smart guys involved in this war, but the statement he made above makes one wonder where his head is at.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 05:14 pm
CLUE: This so-called war has been going on for over four years. jeeesh!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 07:56 pm
The WH is now warning of an increase in violence in Iraq...

Wasn't the purpose of the surge to prevent violence? It seems even the WH is admitting that it isn't working with this warning.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 08:22 pm
parados, That was a given; increase the troops, and more will be exposed to the killing fields. Don't need no rocket scientist to figure that one out! I said as much before this "surge" took place.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 08:48 pm
parados wrote:
The WH is now warning of an increase in violence in Iraq...

Wasn't the purpose of the surge to prevent violence? It seems even the WH is admitting that it isn't working with this warning.

The WH is warning that the surge will cause an increase in violence before it causes a decrease in violence.

Get it right.

After the surge fails, you can celebrate.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 11:29 pm
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
The WH is now warning of an increase in violence in Iraq...

Wasn't the purpose of the surge to prevent violence? It seems even the WH is admitting that it isn't working with this warning.

The WH is warning that the surge will cause an increase in violence before it causes a decrease in violence.

Get it right.

After the surge fails, you can celebrate.


Celebrate? Spoken like an arse.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 03:34 am
Here's an interesting thing. And encouraging sign of things to come, perhaps?

Two anti-war protesters in the UK were tried for breaking into a US air base with the intent to cause damage, on the basis that the planes were about to take part in a war crime and could be legitimately stopped.

The judge allowed the legal defence, and the 12-man jury acquitted them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,,2088629,00.html
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 04:58 am
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
The WH is now warning of an increase in violence in Iraq...

Wasn't the purpose of the surge to prevent violence? It seems even the WH is admitting that it isn't working with this warning.

The WH is warning that the surge will cause an increase in violence before it causes a decrease in violence.

Get it right.

After the surge fails, you can celebrate.


Isn't that something. We have been in Iraq over four years and the only thing this administration can offer us is more violence and more casualities.

And it's the same for Afghanistan.

TWO FAILURES

If this is the best we can do against a minority population in revolt over our invasion what do you think Iran must be thinking.

Oh ya, they're shak'in in their boots. Rolling Eyes

George Bush has show the world our immense power and they're laughing.

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18754293/site/newsweek/

So while we're banging our heads on the rocks of tiny countries the big boys, Russia and China, just get stronger; watching us throw our resources down the drain on garbage like Iraq.

Quote:
Ben Franklin, 2007
8.5 feet wide by 10.5 feet tall in three horizontal panels

Depicts 125,000 one-hundred dollar bills ($12.5 million), the amount our government spends every hour on the war in Iraq.


http://www.chrisjordan.com/images/current2/1169334256.jpg

http://www.chrisjordan.com/images/current2/1169343421.jpg

http://www.chrisjordan.com/images/current2/1169344704.jpg

http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id=?view=XXX_09NNN/
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 06:11 am
McTag wrote:
Here's an interesting thing. And encouraging sign of things to come, perhaps?

Two anti-war protesters in the UK were tried for breaking into a US air base with the intent to cause damage, on the basis that the planes were about to take part in a war crime and could be legitimately stopped.

The judge allowed the legal defence, and the 12-man jury acquitted them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,,2088629,00.html


USAF security force should have shot them.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 06:49 am
mysteryman wrote:

USAF security force should have shot them.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 06:50 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
mysteryman wrote:

USAF security force should have shot them.


Did you have a reply,or were you just practicing your ability to quote others?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 06:52 am
Neither. I only wanted to get your response archived.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 06:55 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Neither. I only wanted to get your response archived.


Why?
Did you think I would try and delete my response?

I will say it again...the USAF seciruty personnel should have shot them for trespassing.

Do you want me to repeat it again?

THE USAF SECURITY PERSONNEL SHOULD HAVE SHOT THEM!![/[/color]size]

There,I have repeated it,and made sure that others would notice it.

Is that good enough for you?
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 0.06 seconds on 07/31/2025 at 07:04:16