xingu wrote:Failed states for 2007
Rank Country
1 Sudan
2 Iraq-courtesy U.S.A.
3 Somalia
4 Zimbabwe
5 Chad
6 Cote d'Ivoire
7 Democratic Republic of Congo
8 Afghanistan
9 Guinea
10 Central African Republic
11 Haiti
12 Pakistan -This baby has nukes and missiles not to mention the Al Qaeda leadership and Teliban
13 North Korea
14 Burma/Myanmar
15 Uganda
16 Bangladesh
17 Nigeria
18 Ethiopia
19 Burundi
20 Timor-Leste
http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=229&Itemid=366
And Iraq was going to be so great after the great evil doer Saddam Hussien was eliminated.
Quote:Cheney is rightly being held to account today for the utter mendacity of this statement. However, equally worthy of attention would seem to be his rather self-regarding assessment about the reception that awaited U.S. invading forces in Iraq. Cheney said: "Another argument holds that opposing Saddam Hussein would cause even greater troubles in that part of the world, and interfere with the larger war against terror. Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are (sic.) eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab `street', the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are `sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans'. Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jehad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991."
source
xingu wrote:Failed states for 2007
Rank Country
1 Sudan
2 Iraq-courtesy U.S.A.
3 Somalia
4 Zimbabwe
5 Chad
6 Cote d'Ivoire
7 Democratic Republic of Congo
8 Afghanistan
9 Guinea
10 Central African Republic
11 Haiti
12 Pakistan -This baby has nukes and missiles not to mention the Al Qaeda leadership and Teliban
13 North Korea
14 Burma/Myanmar
15 Uganda
16 Bangladesh
17 Nigeria
18 Ethiopia
19 Burundi
20 Timor-Leste
http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=229&Itemid=366
Xingu - pls count how many of the 20 are majority inhabited / governed by persons of sub-Saharan African origin (that includes Haiti as you know) or by indigenous peoples (making it easy for you that's Timor) and after you do that pls explain how the $$$$ the U.S. has sent their way (that includes Iraq!) over the years were wasted / pocketed.
Picking one out of 20 to allocate blame is hypocrisy at best.
Tks, Xingu, we can look up links, and even read maps, you know; now how about answering the question?!
High Seas wrote:xingu wrote:Failed states for 2007
Rank Country
1 Sudan
2 Iraq-courtesy U.S.A.
3 Somalia
4 Zimbabwe
5 Chad
6 Cote d'Ivoire
7 Democratic Republic of Congo
8 Afghanistan
9 Guinea
10 Central African Republic
11 Haiti
12 Pakistan -This baby has nukes and missiles not to mention the Al Qaeda leadership and Teliban
13 North Korea
14 Burma/Myanmar
15 Uganda
16 Bangladesh
17 Nigeria
18 Ethiopia
19 Burundi
20 Timor-Leste
http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=229&Itemid=366
Xingu - pls count how many of the 20 are majority inhabited / governed by persons of sub-Saharan African origin (that includes Haiti as you know) or by indigenous peoples (making it easy for you that's Timor) and after you do that pls explain how the $$$$ the U.S. has sent their way (that includes Iraq!) over the years were wasted / pocketed.
Picking one out of 20 to allocate blame is hypocrisy at best.
No, not hypocrisy. We are directly responsible for what has happened in Iraq and to a degree what is happening in Pakistan. Our sending $$$$$ to failed states in no way is the same as our behavior in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I agree we have wasted a lot of money trying to prop up failed states but that is not the same as using our military to implement foreign policy.
Widely Ignored By Press: Surge in Iraqi Displaced Citizens
Widely Ignored By Press: A 'Surge' in Iraqi Displaced Citizens
By E&P Staff
Published: June 18, 2007
The plight -- and massive number -- of refugees and displaced citizens in Iraq has been one of the great under-reported aspects of the war. Perhaps that will change in the wake of a report by the Iraqi Red Crescent today.
The leading humanitarian group in Iraq says the number of internally displaced people (IDP's) in Iraq has quadrupled since January and is up eight times from a year ago.
It had found in May 2006 that there were 125,169. For May 2007 it counts 1,024,430, with 37% of them children. Health care is limited.
"Rape, armed gangs, theft, drug addiction was a common place among IDP, " the report states. "The overall picture is that of a human tragedy unprecedented in Iraq's history."
A summary on the IraqSlogger.com site observes, "Many IDP's take refuge in the house of extended family or a friend, while others squat illegally in abandoned houses. Many live on the streets or in makeshift mud huts and tin shacks, and tens of thousands of others live in tent cities." The report reveals that the province with the greatest number of IDP's is Ninevah (Mosul area), with 239,547, followed by Baghdad, with 196,227.
In addition, more than two million Iraqis are estimated to have fled Iraq for Syria, Jordan and other countries.
More from the report:
"Displacement resulted in major changes in the population demography. The education sector was negatively affected by the flow of the displaced people into the different governorates. Schools witnessed significant increase in the number of students in each classroom. Many schools are operating in two shifts to accommodate the growing number of students. There is also shortage in educational materials and stationary. These factors contributed to decreased quality of education in the host communities.
"Shelter is a major problem. While some families dwelled with relatives, other families sheltered in government buildings. Those who got sheltered in government buildings are being exposed to mortar attacks and suffer from lack of essential services, food, water and electricity. In addition, there is the risk of unexploded ordinance or bombs in these buildings. It is important to mention these IDP could be evicted at any time.
"The IDP have limited access to health care. The lack of health care coupled with the increasing needs is having serious effects on the life of women and children. Pregnant women, infants and children are unable to get the required medical care and criminal abortion became the norms."
"The psychological wellbeing of the IDP is another major concern. The horrors of daily killings and explosions have a serious impact on the children and the women. Some IDP families took refuge with armed groups as they represented the true authority of the land for them. Some teenagers who lost loved ones joined the armed groups and started taking revenge from innocent people from different ethnic groups."
Quick test - how many times has the USMC been dispatched to sort out problems in Haiti? Count all centuries since establishment of the Marine Corps, pls....
Iraq on Verge of Genocidal War, Warns Ex-US Official
Iraq on Verge of Genocidal War, Warns Ex-US Official
By Patrick Wintour
The Guardian UK
Monday 18 June 2007
The man who led the initial American effort to reconstruct Iraq after the war believes the country is on the brink of a genocidal civil war and its government will fall apart unless the US changes course and allows a three-way federal structure. He has also urged talks with Iran and other regional players.
Jay Garner, the former US general appointed two months before the invasion to head reconstruction in Iraq, admitted that before the 2003 war coordination between the various US departments and military had been disjointed.
He also disclosed that the US state department official in charge of postwar planning, Thomas Warrick, was prevented from joining his team by Donald Rumsfeld, who was defence secretary. He said he was shocked by the Pentagon's decision to reduce troop levels and disband the Iraqi army.
"The problem from my standpoint within the United States was that there had been a lot of planning done by each element ... by the CIA, the state department, the treasury department, defence department," Mr Garner told the Future of Iraq Commission chaired by Lord Ashdown, Lady Jay and Lord King.
"But the problem with that planning is that it had been done in the vertical stovepipe of that agency and the horizontal connection of those plans did not occur".
The Guardian disclosed, in an interview on Saturday, that Andrew Bearpark, the British director of operations for the body that took over from Mr Garner, the Coalition Provisional Authority, discovered the plan to boost Iraq's postwar electricity production ran to one page. He said those who failed to plan for the postwar period were guilty of "criminal irresponsibility".
In a Channel 4 documentary to be screened this week, Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser, David Manning, admits he does not know why more was not done to plan for the war's aftermath. He said: "Well it's hard to know exactly what happened over the postwar planning. I can only say that I remember the PM raising this many months before the war began. He was very exercised about it.... But it isn't a question I find easy to answer "
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, a former British ambassador to the UN, tells the programme Mr Blair was tearing his hair out asking "What are the Americans up to?"
Mr Garner revealed he spent two frantic days in February 2003 trying to discover what postwar plans existed, and how they related to one another.
He said: "I asked Tom Warrick ... to join our organisation which he did the following Monday, and then about Thursday of that week I was told to remove him from the organisation. So I argued with that. I told Secretary Rumsfeld I didn't want to do that.
"I went to see Stephen Hadley, the number two at the National Security Council and said I don't want to do that but I was told I had to."
Mr Garner also admitted he did not see several of the plans prepared by the Bush administration and does not know why. He also revealed that he rang Mr Rumsfeld to tell him to stop reducing the US troop deployment and warned him that the consequent power vacuums were filling up with " fundamentalists". He also admits he was stunned by the decision in mid-May 2003 to disband the Iraqi army, saying at one stroke, it created a 200,000- strong armed opposition.
Why the surge was bound to fail before they even considered such an ill-conceived idea: too little, too late.
78 killed by bombing at Baghdad mosque
By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 15 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - A truck bomb struck a Shiite mosque Tuesday in central Baghdad, killing 78 people and wounding more than 200, even as about 10,000 U.S. soldiers northeast of the capital used heavily armored Stryker and Bradley fighting vehicles to battle their way into an al-Qaida sanctuary.
The troops, under cover of attack helicopters, killed at least 22 insurgents in the offensive, the U.S. military said.
The thunderous explosion at the Khulani mosque in the capital's busy commercial area of Sinak sent smoke billowing over concrete buildings, nearly a week after a bombing brought down the twin minarets of a revered Shiite shrine in the northern city of Samarra and two days after officials lifted a curfew aimed at preventing retaliatory violence from that attack.
Gunfire erupted after the blast, which police said occurred in a parking lot near the mosque, causing the outer wall and a building just inside it to crumble.
Police and hospital officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they feared retribution, said at least 78 people were killed and 218 were wounded, adding that the toll could rise as bodies were pulled from the debris.
One officer said the explosives-packed truck was loaded with fans and air coolers to avoid arousing the suspicions of security forces guarding the surrounding area, which is full of shops selling electrical appliances.
Six of those killed lived in a house behind the mosque that also collapsed, the officer said, adding that 20 cars were burned and 25 shops were damaged.
There was never "progress" in Iraq; only the meanderings of Bushco and his fellow war lords. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see the people leaving Iraq by the thousands/millions simply because their home country is not secure and safe. Those left behind are getting killed, and just adding to the total fatalities. Bush doesn't give a shite about lives, although he said "each life is precious!" Each life may be precious, but not tens of thousands. This war must continue until we "win."
Deadliest attacks on mosques in Iraq
By The Associated Press
40 minutes ago
Some of the deadliest attacks against mosques in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003:
___
_June 19: A car bomb strikes near the Shiite Khillani mosque in Baghdad, killing at least 78 people and wounding more than 200.
_Feb. 24: A truck bomb explodes as worshippers leave a Sunni mosque in Habbaniyah, west of Baghdad, killing more than 50 people and injuring at least 60.
_Jan. 30: A suicide bomber strikes a crowd entering a Shiite mosque, killing 19 people and wounding 54 in Mandali, near the Iranian border.
As more troops come home with injuries, Bush has cut veteran's benefits and services beginning in the 2008 fiscal year. What a nice guy!
Everything is stretched so tight in Iraq that soon something is going to give, I am just afraid of what it will be. Don't the republicans in congress read the news or do they just have it tuned into 24 hours fox? Don't they see overstretched our military is? If after August, nothing has improved despite the "surge" of our wore out troops, surely for the sake of the troops if not the Iraqis, they will finally vote to bring them home?
Which of these two actions will ultimately result in the most deadly consequences?
1. USA military leaving Iraq before Iraq is secured?
2. USA military remaining in Iraq until Iraq is secured?
Why do you think so?
Common sense would dictate so, but we never know about how much more stubborn Bush can get, and the "yes" congress with no spine.
cicerone imposter wrote:As more troops come home with injuries, Bush has cut veteran's benefits and services beginning in the 2008 fiscal year. What a nice guy!
MALARKEY! BUSH HAS DONE NO SUCH THING!
President Bush spoke to the American Legion today, claiming that "support of our veterans has been a high priority in my administration," and that one of his priorities is "making sure that our veterans have got good, decent, quality healthcare."
Watch it:
President Bush should save his rhetoric. In an interview with National Public Radio, even American Legion National Commander Paul Morin, a regular political ally of the White House, pointed out that Bush has consistently skimped on veterans funding. "We are not pleased with the budget for the military and for the VA hospitals for our veterans," Morin said. "I blame the President and Congress for insufficient funding of the VA health care system."
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
A look at the facts back up Morin's claims about Bush's short-changing of veterans:
Bush raises health care costs for veterans. For the fifth year in a row, Bush's budget has attempted to raise health care costs on 1.3 million veterans, calling for "new enrollment fees and higher drug co-payments for some veterans."
Bush administration has claimed veterans benefits are "hurtful" to national security. In 2005, the Wall Street Journal noted the growing cost of veterans benefits due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon's response was to complain that it would "rather use [the funds] to help troops fighting today." "The amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself," says David Chu, the Pentagon's undersecretary for personnel and readiness.