The Iraq thread 4

[Baff1 0]

In my opinon there is a very real possibility of that airbase and Embassy being abandoned. It happened in Vietnam.

But in all honesty, I'm not American. That's not my primary concern.

A much bigger possibility is of the British abandoning our embassy and airbase.

The military are 100% capable of holding it, but will the public allow them to?

The people here don't believe in this war. They haven't since day one. It is considered unjust (and even illegal).

We want to lose.

[martinovic 0]

Yet again sputnik you avoid my arguments.

"Yes poor poor Saddam, did you vote for him?"

Is that how you challenge my claims?

Fine, remain in your vacuum. But forgive me for playing around with that vaccum for a little longer.

Quote[/b] ]Such arrogance. At least you’ve shown your true snobbery and how you look down on certain nations. You are all talk however, I bet if you met some one from one of those nations you would refrain from telling them to their face what you think of their "rag tag" country.

I would tell a Ukrainian or Hungarian or Palauan any day of the week that his country's few thousand soldiers in Iraq were* worthless for the war effort and they would most likely agree. I live in Hungary.

Maybe rag tag doesn't apply to the country as a whole, but definately to their military presence in Iraq.

*These two countries, like most others, have already pulled out, since they didn't get their visa benefits (that were promised to them, btw).

Quote[/b] ]Ahh yes praise Saddam, he wasn't so bad. If he wasn't dead you'd make a good chairman for a re-elect Saddam campaign. I love your slogan "Running water, less death, electricity!"

The problem with your argument is that i would win the election.

Quote[/b] ]I'd rather not think like them, the idea of killing some one because of something so trivial and retarded as devil horns is sickening.

Ok fine, plug your ears in and scream lalalalala, all the while trying to turn Al Anbar into Ohio.

Quote[/b] ]Your argument here is probably one of the most comical you've presented. You are saying some yanks who have an appreciation for shitty rock music are the ones who are screwed up not the ones who would rather be out killing people for having devil horns or a cross? Get real.

Ok, are you really this dense or are you just trying to get a rise out of me?

Who said anything about anyone being screwed up?

I am telling you here why they want to kill you. I am not saying what's right or wrong, i'm telling you the reason why they want to kill you.

Trust me, one picture of an american tank driver with horns is a hundred times more effective than any other Jihadi propaganda.

Why don't you go to Iraq and try to talk some "sense" into them, huh? Go to Ansar Al-Sunnah and chat with them.

Quote[/b] ]Also your argument that Muslims don't give a shit about being rebellious is absurd. What the hell are all the Jihadist out killing and torturing people for doing then? That's not rebellious, it's good clean family fun?

YES! TO THEM IT IS GOOD FAMILIY FUN! GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD ALREADY!

http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=1536576

Do you really have absolutely no friggin clue of who you are dealing with?

Whatever I say seems to disappear in a vortex of rethoric. "Saddam bad!" "Booo Islam!"

I give up... whatever. No use arguing with you. I'll read your reply, but hopefully i won't further respond.

[walker 0]

I anticipate high comedy.

Talking of comedy, here are some words of wisdom from Dick Cheney.

Hi all

An interesting and instructive find.

The Bush Adminstration has until September.

Kind Regards walker

[chops 111]

Not everyone in Iraq hated Saddam.

Not every one in Iraq was repressed under him.

In the words of that reveared commentator on geopolitics, John McEnroe,

You can not be serious!!

He had members of his own family killed for fucks sake! Saddam was the only one in Iraq not oppressed by Saddam. You do not have to be tortured to be repressed.

Iraq was a nicer place under Saddam. It was stable. It was wealthy. It was religiously tolerant.

The stinking bloated corpses littering the streets of Halabja in 1988, would suggest otherwise.

This attack on Iraq was an monumental bludder, the ramifications of which will be felt for generations. I don't think it's as simple as "Sadam was better" and "Good versus evil". I haven't heard any suggestions from anywhere as to what happens next. The genie is out of the bottle.

@0311

Quote[/b] ]The actual motives of this war was never to simply remove Saddam.

I mean, the stated reasons were as follows.

To create a friendly springboard country for better access to the rest of the Mid East. To culturally and socially rebuild the mid east starting with Iraq. And to establish a new oil trading partner there.

I don't think you can seriously mention motives for war and leave out the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that we all heard about every day for months before the war, and then never after. As for "bringing democracy to the middle east" Palaestine had elections, as does Lebanon, Iran does too (after vetting of candidates by the beardy weirdy mullahs).

A country can't be bombed to the stone-age and then flourish into a pluralist democracy overnight.

[Baff1 0]

So what if he had members of his own family killed?

Welcome to Iraq. Did you think he was the first leader in history ever to have done so?

Did you think being ruler of Iraq doesn't come without it's perils. Members of his own family were trying to kill him too.

He's not the only ruler in the region to have suffered multiple assasination attempts either. They all have.

Look how many Mushareff has survived.

Iraq isn't in Ohio.

You are judging it by a measuring stick that doesn't apply.

Have people suddenly stopped killing each other, even members of their own family now he is not in power?

Have the massacres suddenly stopped? Did the people of Halajaba suddenly stop rebelling now he has gone, did the Iranians stop encouraging and arming them?

Or have the Kurds totally seperated in all but name?

Have the Iranians stopped trying to incite revolts and overthrow the government?

Massacres in Halajaba. What a joke. Even by the most conservative of estimates less than half as many Iraqi's dies under Saddam's 20 year rule than in the 4 years since.

The genie is out of the bottle, a genie that Saddam had been keeping in.

Saddam was not the only one in Iraq not oppressed by Saddam. How ludicrous.

You think one man alone can rule a nation of 24 million without support?

One man oppressed 24 million people, each one of them armed. But he alone managed to oppress them all.

Going door to door presumably.

A lot of people benefitted under Saddams rule.

Not least his own family who all held positions of power and wealth.

Not least his own tribe the Sunni's how were all relocated to key starategic locations of Kurdish and Shia uprising to dominate the regions.

Not least the Christians who were free to practise their own beliefs under a secular government.

He was head of the Baathist movement. The largest political party in the land, not to mention the largest political movement in neighbouring Syria.

He defeated the Kurdish, the Shia and Iranian threats and held Iraq together for a period of 20 years in a way that the worlds greatest super power combined with 29 other nations has since been completely unable.

It might not have been better for us inthe west, but Saddam's rule was certasinly better for the Iraqi's.

Palestine isn't really a good example of Arab democracy, now is it.

The elected government has been overthrown by a terrorist organisation already, with the backing of the very same western people crowing for democracy in Iraq. And the country has split in two.

Is this really the role model you are seeking to promote?

The Persian democracy in Iran is also a target for overthrow by those very same people.

It seems every time anyone in Middle East gets the vote, they vote to get rid of us. They vote for war.

[Black Sphere 0]

So what if he had members of his own family killed?

Welcome to Iraq. Did you think he was the first leader in history ever to have done so?

Did you think being ruler of Iraq doesn't come without it's perils. Members of his own family were trying to kill him too.

? ? ? ? ? What kind of sick BS is this? Welcome to Iraq? Why, is such a behaviour part of a family tradition, part of a folklore down there? Or this is a common behaviour of the ruler?

Quote[/b] ]He's not the only ruler in the region to have suffered multiple assasination attempts either. They all have.

Look how many Mushareff has survived.

Iraq isn't in Ohio.

You are judging it by a measuring stick that doesn't apply.

Friendly, generous and warm-hearted or even moderately sain leaders don't get such a treatman, do they. And that about the stick ... Jesus!!! The only measurement here should be a common sense, and a common sense use a same logic on any corner of the world!

Quote[/b] ]Have people suddenly stopped killing each other, even members of their own family now he is not in power?

Have the massacres suddenly stopped? Did the people of Halajaba suddenly stop rebelling now he has gone, did the Iranians stop encouraging and arming them?

Or have the Kurds totally seperated in all but name?

Have the Iranians stopped trying to incite revolts and overthrow the government?

Massacres in Halajaba. What a joke. Even by the most conservative of estimates less than half as many Iraqi's dies under Saddam's 20 year rule than in the 4 years since.

The genie is out of the bottle, a genie that Saddam had been keeping in.

Those 'new' massacres are totally different in their 'nature', of course you don't see this, you're obviously a champion of a cold and heartless generalising.

Quote[/b] ]Saddam was not the only one in Iraq not oppressed by Saddam. How ludicrous.

You think one man alone can rule a nation of 24 million without support?

One man oppressed 24 million people, each one of them armed. But he alone managed to oppress them all.

Going door to door presumably.

A lot of people benefitted under Saddams rule.

Not least his own family who all held positions of power and wealth.

Not least his own tribe the Sunni's how were all relocated to key starategic locations of Kurdish and Shia uprising to dominate the regions.

Not least the Christians who were free to practise their own beliefs under a secular government.

Indeed, how ludicrous. This is not worthed even to comment. And Christians been able to practice their own beliefs, like this was some special gift, a gesture of unpresidented generousity from Saddam, not a common standard of freedom of religious practicing in the rest of the sain and above all free world.

Quote[/b] ]He was head of the Baathist movement. The largest political party in the land, not to mention the largest political movement in neighbouring Syria.

Wrong, the ONLY political party in the land.

Quote[/b] ]He defeated the Kurdish, the Shia and Iranian threats and held Iraq together for a period of 20 years in a way that the worlds greatest super power combined with 29 other nations has since been completely unable.

You blind hypocrit; with Saddam's 'means' and the way of ruling the Coalition would restore an order in the country in no time.

Quote[/b] ]It might not have been better for us inthe west, but Saddam's rule was certasinly better for the Iraqi's.

How can you know that as is more than obvious you don't have the slightest clue about anything. Were those a statists celebrating on the Bhagdad's streets the Saddam's overthrown from the power? I already hear you saying "Bah, those were those traitorous, selfish, ungrateful Shiits".

The real question here is that they didn't deserved to be 'liberated'; if you can't or you're not able to liberate yourself from the oppression, then you're not worthed of the free living, and certainly not worthed to be liberated by others, and you 'deserve' the the ruler you have.

Quote[/b] ]The Persian democracy in Iran is also a target for overthrow by those very same people.

It seems every time anyone in Middle East gets the vote, they vote to get rid of us. They vote for war.

Persian democracy in Iran? You're a lost case, definately.

But of course, you, I, we the westerns are to blame for anything and everything bad going down there on the Middle East and of course elswhere on the world. But I must admit in this quote of yours is the only sentence in your post that have a shread of a common sense in it, but still it's generalising and simplifying beyond any sain belief.

Is revolting me even to read not yet to comment such crap like this post, but I'll make an exception in your case. I had in mind to comment just with one strong sentence this puke material of yours, but I changed my mind because you're not even nearly worthed to gain me a WL.

[martinovic 0]

Black Sphere, let me educate you.

Quote[/b] ]Why, is such a behaviour part of a family tradition,

YES

Quote[/b] ]Friendly, generous and warm-hearted or even moderately sain leaders don't get such a treatman, do they.

They do, in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ] And that about the stick ... Jesus!!! The only measurement here should be a common sense, and a common sense use a same logic on any corner of the world!

Overthere it is common sense to kill the guy. The situation is that bad. The agitation by Al Qaida has helped amplify the bad mood even further.

Quote[/b] ]Those 'new' massacres are totally different in their 'nature', of course you don't see this, you're obviously a champion of a cold and heartless generalising.

You're not even able to see the arab point of view. These new massacres are the exact same in nature, Saddam was sunni, he was loved by sunnis, he only opressed shias/kurds. Now the coin flipped and the shias would've been willing to let it go it seems, but the Sammarra mosque bombing was the last straw.

Quote[/b] ]And Christians been able to practice their own beliefs, like this was some special gift,

Yes! It was! It's gone now.

Quote[/b] ]You blind hypocrit; with Saddam's 'means' and the way of ruling the Coalition would restore an order in the country in no time.

That's naive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html

That's a mild story, only got light shed on it because of US soldiers involved.

Just because you've "outsourced" torture to other corporations than the US military doesn't mean you are not doing it.

Quote[/b] ]CACI, which has headquarters in Virginia, claims on its website to "help America's intelligence community collect, analyse and share global information in the war on terrorism".

Read: they're torturing information out of captured iraqis.

Welcome back to Al-Kansas.

[Black Sphere 0]

First off martinovic, I don't need any education, especially not coming from you, your posts here are also one among the most ridiculous ones.

Quote[/b] ]  

Why, is such a behaviour part of a family tradition,

YES

Total bull. Can't understand such twisted thinking, to picture the whole nation as savages with some pervert bloodthirsty habits and rituals, and this from those which otherwise are trying to justify and to explain some other sick doings like the terrorist attacks ... but on the other hand, it fits into the picture.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Friendly, generous and warm-hearted or even moderately sain leaders don't get such a treatman, do they.

They do, in Iraq.

Again, a total bull. And how to answer on such "They do, in Iraq" claim? Ah, I have it; "No they don't, not even in Iraq!"

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ] And that about the stick ... Jesus!!! The only measurement here should be a common sense, and a common sense use a same logic on any corner of the world!

Overthere it is common sense to kill the guy. The situation is that bad. The agitation by Al Qaida has helped amplify the bad mood even further.

Well look how simple is that, simple beyond any sain comprehension. It must be nothing but animals down there, killing and eating each other ... And don't talk about common sense anymore, not after this "overthere it is common sense to kill the guy" 'fact' of yours. If you can't understand such doing cannot be common sense no matter where, no matter the reason and circumstances, then you're a lost case too.

Quote[/b] ]You're not even able to see the arab point of view. These new massacres are the exact same in nature, Saddam was sunni, he was loved by sunnis, he only opressed shias/kurds. Now the coin flipped and the shias would've been willing to let it go it seems, but the Sammarra mosque bombing was the last straw.

I don't need to see the arab point of view here. In fact it's quite simple, even more simple from your picturing; I won't go into any deep and long essay why all shit is happening as is happening but very shortly, all that ordeal in Iraq after the aggression is nothing but a struggle for gaining power and the influence over this country's carcass or over the part of it, beginning with Sunis and Shiits and Curds, Syrians, Iranians down to Al Qaeda. And of course The Americans. So these new massacres are not "the exact same in nature", far from it. But I'm used and in fact expecting such blindness from some.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And Christians been able to practice their own beliefs, like this was some special gift,

Yes! It was! It's gone now.

Well martinovic, there's just no end of yours short and deep facts or rather saying truths ... I just don't know what to answer on such statements, I really don't, your way of thinking is just too much out for my comprehention, so I'll rather pass. And you've left out the last and essential part of the sentence e.g. you fail to absorb it so you've ignore it, but as already mentioned above I'm used to such things (from some) here in this thread.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]You blind hypocrit; with Saddam's 'means' and the way of ruling the Coalition would restore an order in the country in no time.

That's naive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html

That's a mild story, only got light shed on it because of US soldiers involved.

Just because you've "outsourced" torture to other corporations than the US military doesn't mean you are not doing it.

Quote[/b] ]CACI, which has headquarters in Virginia, claims on its website to "help America's intelligence community collect, analyse and share global information in the war on terrorism".

Read: they're torturing information out of captured iraqis.

No mate, you're naive as hell to say it mildly, because you obviously don't even know what that tyrant Saddam and his apparatus was able and what has done, and you're talking and comparing here a few tortures during the interrogation, and few killings and rapes with Saddam's 'work' e.g. way of ruling ... You obviously didn't undertanded the meaning of that quote, which is shame, because it's not so long neather hard to understand.

Quote[/b] ]Welcome back to Al-Kansas.

Shit that was deep man. The best sentence from you.

[Balschoiw 0]

Welcome to the wonderful US pacified Iraq:

175 killed by Iraq bombs

Quote[/b] ]Baghdad - Four suicide bombers drove trucks packed with explosives into a complex housing members of a small religious sect in northwest Iraq on Tuesday, killing at least 175 in the deadliest attack on civilians in the country in nearly a year.

The simultaneous blasts targeting the Yazidi community in Qahataniya, about 70 miles west of Mosul, injured another 200 and inflicted fresh damage on ethnic cohesion in a country beset by sectarian conflict.

Earlier Tuesday, another suicide bomber drove a truck laden with explosives onto a key bridge linking Baghdad with vital northern oil fields. At least 10 died when the concrete span plunged into the murky waters of a canal linking the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Dozens of Iraqis died in other incidents across the country. U.S. losses in Iraq included five troops who were killed in a helicopter crash in western Anbar province.

And in a challenge to U.S. and Iraqi efforts to quell rampant violence, scores of gunmen dressed as Iraqi soldiers kidnapped five senior Oil Ministry officials in broad daylight, using 17 official government vehicles to nab them at their heavily fortified central Baghdad compound.

Yazidis have faced persecution under a succession of rulers in Iraq.

Some Kurds believe that the Yazidi people, most of whom are Kurds but are neither Muslim nor Christian, are members of a demonic cult. The attack took the minority by surprise and spurred accusations of religious and ethnic intolerance.

It came several months after gunmen dragged more than 20 members of the sect off a bus and shot them, apparently in retaliation for the stoning death of a Yazidi woman who converted to Islam and had a love affair with a Sunni man.

"There is no justification for this," said Aydan Shikh, a 33-year-old Yazidi activist surveying the devastation after the suicide bombings, which left apartment buildings and stores ablaze. "What crime have the Yazidis committed to deserve this?"

The U.S. government condemned the attack.

"Extremists continue to show to what lengths they will go to stop Iraq from becoming a stable and secure country," the White House said in a statement. "We will continue to work with the Iraqi government and the Iraqi security forces to stabilize the country and beat back these vicious and heartless murderers."

The death toll was the highest in a single incident since a barrage of mortars killed 205 people in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad in November.

Troop pullback planned

Meanwhile, intent on demonstrating progress in Iraq, the U.S. military commander is expected by top Bush administration officials to recommend removing American troops from several areas soon, possibly including Anbar province.

According to the officials, Gen. David Petraeus is expected to propose the partial pullback in his September status report to Congress.

The recommendation would authorize U.S. commanders to withdraw troops from places that have become less violent and turn over security responsibilities to Iraqi forces. But it does not necessarily mean Petraeus will call for reducing the overall number of troops. Instead, he could move the forces to another hot spot or use them to create a reserve force to counter any rise in violence.

Petraeus has not told the White House where he might recommend reductions. But military commanders in recent briefings have indicated that Nineveh province and Mosul in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, like Anbar province in the west, could be suitable sites for U.S. withdrawals. However, Tuesday's bomb attacks took place near Mosul, where U.S. officials have slashed the number of forces.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it actually will be written by the White House, with input from officials throughout the government.

And while Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data. The senior administration official said the process has created "uncomfortable positions" for the White House because of debates over what constitutes "satisfactory progress."

Helicopter crashes

In the worst case of U.S. loss of life Tuesday, a U.S. transport helicopter crashed near an air base in western Iraq, killing five troopers, the military said. The CH-47 Chinook helicopter was conducting a routine post-maintenance test flight when it went down near Al Taqaddum Air Base, the U.S. military said.

Four other U.S. soldiers were reported as killed in combat - three in an explosion near their vehicle Monday in the northwestern Nineveh province. The fourth died of wounds suffered in western Baghdad.

Their deaths were reported on a day when 16,000 U.S. and Iraqi soldiers began a sweep through the Diyala River valley in a new operation north of Baghdad in pursuit of Sunni insurgents and Shiite militiamen driven out of Baqouba and Anbar province over the past several weeks.

In the offensive, three suspected militants had been killed and four booby-trapped houses destroyed, said Lt. Col. Michael Donnelly, a military spokesman in northern Iraq, citing preliminary reports.

Mission accomplished.

[chops 111]

This is hilarious!

Baff1, you have the same attitude to the Iraqis that the white South Africans had the the dirty black kaffas in South Africa. Savage by nature and only controlable through the most violent and repressive means.

Somehow time has gone backwards and Sadam has brought prosperity to the Iraqis who are by nature a no better than a pack of wild dogs. What was Iraq like BEFORE Sadam? I think you'll find it was better than after.

As for the "threat" from the Kurds, Shiites and Iran. HE ATTACKED THEM for fucks sake!

I never thought and still do not think that this war was worth removing Sadam. I also don't think any sane person can ever qualify Sadams repression either.

Go and talk to an Iraqi refugee, look him or her in the eye and say "I don't give a shit about the murdered members of your family. It's the only way to control you savage animals." This is your contention.

Re Balschoiw's post.

And what is the result? We citizens of west say "ooh that was a big one" and change the channel.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]And what is the result? We citizens of west say "ooh that was a big one" and change the channel.

The result should be to realize that the situation Iraq is out of control and that the US forces and their strategies and plans only achieved the following:

- mass refugee movement out of Iraq

- US siding with Sunni insurgent groups causes even more unrest

- infrastructure still on the ground due to corruption and mishandling of reconstruction

- plans to withdraw US troops from provinces that are not even remotely pacified just to bring down the US casualties numbers

- citing wrong numbers and publishing flexed statistics to make people think that the security situation is improving (Baghdad numbers by McClatchy vs. official reports)

- fingerpointing by the US that is just meant to put blame for the catastrophal security situation on the Iraquis, the Iranians , etc.

In fact the security situation is the result of the ackward US planning of the Iraq operation and the conduction of those operations. They simply failed in most aspects and still fail, but today they are putting the blame for their messed up military adventure on the Iraquis themselves and other extraterrestrial forces.

I guess one sentence sums up best what has and is going wrong in Iraq, apart from the cartoon statements from the White House:

Quote[/b] ]"I think we tried to build the house before we built the foundation," Welch said, adding that the current U.S. strategy is "four years overdue."

Spot on, I ´d say.

[Black Sphere 0]

@Balschoiw - You and people like you should to decide inside yourself what the hell you want from The Americans in the first place; if you want them to leave Iraq as you unresposibly wishing with all your fibers, and to leave it in and to total chaos *read to a bloodshed with which the present massacres would look like a child's play*, or to stay and try to restore the order as much as possible before they retreat. You see, you can't have both. And to stay is a hard, responsible decision and task, very hard task, much harder than many of you are thinking (I would like to see your competence and solutions and actions in such complicated an volatile situation, and how you would deal with such responsibility), you're able just of throwing here the news about the last massacre, and then everything to hang on the american's back. Total hipocricy. They (The Americans) are to blame for every broken water pipe down there aren't they, for every damn hole on the road and for the roads not been paved, for every not rebuilded house, for every car bomb, for every death, for every innocent victim, for not being a sunny day in Iraq. Well, liked or not, they aren't. If you didn't noticed this recent attack were religiously motivated, so what The Americans should do, start (with force) to convert those religious fanatics into some other, more 'peaceful' religion? To put them away - to attack and kill or capture them and then lock them in Guantanamo? To pacify/invade every neighboring country which is sticking their fingers and messing around in Iraq? Yea it's that 'simple' ...

I guess one sentence sums up best what has and is going wrong in Iraq, apart from the cartoon statements from the White House:

Quote[/b] ]"I think we tried to build the house before we built the foundation," Welch said, adding that the current U.S. strategy is "four years overdue."

Spot on, I ´d say.

Wrong, the sentence bellow sums up best what has and is going wrong in Iraq, despite it's coming from the White House, and I beleive to your shock is not a cartoon statement but a hard cash reality:

Quote[/b] ]"Extremists continue to show to what lengths they will go to stop Iraq from becoming a stable and secure country"

[chops 111]

Black Sphere, you got all of that out of Balschoiw's "Mission Accomplished"?

While not responsible for the weather in Iraq, this was a war of choice for the US and allies. As you say, the US aren't setting off carbombs in Iraq, but they did create the environment for this to happen. As Colin Powell said himself, "you break it, you own it".

The current talk now from TBA is that "the Iraqi's need to step up and take responsibility for the defence of their country". Strange how the fact they couldn't do that was so heroicly celebrated by Bush on that aircraft carrier four years ago.

Sounds strikingly similar to "Vietnamization".

What I want from the Americans is to blow the rags off cockroach Taliban heads in Afghanistan, finish the job they started. Then head over to Sudan and lay waste to those Janjaweed militia savages.

But there's no oil, only a little gas to be got through Afghnistan. SOme oil in Sudan, but the Chinese wouldn't stand for that.

[Black Sphere 0]

Black Sphere, you got all of that out of Balschoiw's "Mission Accomplished"?

No, from the last two posts of his, which are in my eyes regarding that they are coming from a same author slightly contradicting. And from some other things which are not so important to be brought out.

Quote[/b] ]While not responsible for the weather in Iraq, this was a war of choice for the US and allies. As you say, the US aren't setting off carbombs in Iraq, but they did create the environment for this to happen. As Colin Powell said himself, "you break it, you own it".

I know that, no one is disputing this. Please don't make me to repeat or god forbid to justify myself, I'm not in a mood for this, especially not in this thread.

Quote[/b] ]The current talk now from TBA is that "the Iraqi's need to step up and take responsibility for the defence of their country". Strange how the fact they couldn't do that was so heroicly celebrated by Bush on that aircraft carrier four years ago.

Sounds strikingly similar to "Vietnamization".

Well dude, I don't see much wrong in that quotation; this is their way of thinking; we 'liberated' you, we'll help you but now you must learn to live (practice the democracy) by yourself, we can't constantly wipe your asses. And I knewed this conflict will be 'vietnamized' long ago, even before the war has started (when Bush prepared american public on the war with his 'weapons of mass destruction' speaches), and I hope it's obvious why.

Quote[/b] ]What I want from the Americans is to blow the rags off cockroach Taliban heads in Afghanistan, finish the job they started. Then head over to Sudan and lay waste to those Janjaweed militia savages.

Now Afghanistan and Sudan is a different matter from Iraq? People, your principles and points of view are totally messed up. Or you're a bird or you're a mouse ... Or you're a bat (not a bird not a mouse).

Quote[/b] ]But there's no oil, only a little gas to be got through Afghnistan. SOme oil in Sudan, but the Chinese wouldn't stand for that.

Every child knows (I hope) why Americans are in Iraq. And why the recent race for the ownership over the Northern Pole (and his riches) has begun.

[baddo 0]

What I want from the Americans? Let's get one thing straight, in my eyes America consists of a much larger area than just the United States of America. I am unwilling to drag all Americans (Brazilians, Peruvians etc.) into this argument about what George W. Bush and his administration have done.

First of all what I want to hear from G.W.B. and his administration: an apology to the whole World. They have insulted so many nations and individuals during the process of going to Iraq and being there, that an apology is the first thing that I expect them to do. As long as no admittance of their mistakes and an apology are not heard by me, no support to G.W.B. and his administration can be expected from me. If the U.S. wants to get the international community to work with them in good spirit again, an apology is a must.

Sometimes a man must admit his mistakes, and ask for an apology. Is George W. Bush a man? Honestly, at the moment I don't know.

G.W.B. and his administration started a big mess. It would have to be completely their job to clean it up. It should not have to be the job of the United Nations for example. It makes me angry that already in 2003 the U.S. was trying to get the U.N. to participate more in Iraq, as they saw soon that they were unable to get Iraq under their control. And this happened soon after the U.S. had sidestepped the U.N. in deciding whether to start the war or not. If that alone is not insulting and stupid then what is. I am afraid that in the end the U.N. will need to take control of the situation from G.W.B. and his administration, but it has to happen on one condition: U.S. shall not have anything to say, except through normal U.N. procedures, what will happen in Iraq. It is possible to stabilize Iraq, but as long as the U.S. military is there, it's not going to happen. There are just too many people there who want to shed exactly U.S. blood, and who want to make the life of exactly the U.S. politicians much, much harder.

[Black Sphere 0]

What I want from the Americans? Let's get one thing straight, in my eyes America consists of a much larger area than just the United States of America. I am unwilling to drag all Americans (Brazilians, Peruvians etc.) into this argument about what George W. Bush and his administration have done.

We all know which Americans we all have in mind, so this was kinda ... not necessary, Baddo.

Quote[/b] ]First of all what I want to hear from G.W.B. and his administration: an apology to the whole World. They have insulted so many nations and individuals during the process of going to Iraq and being there, that an apology is the first thing that I expect them to do. As long as no admittance of their mistakes and an apology are not heard by me, no support to G.W.B. and his administration can be expected from me. If the U.S. wants to get the international community to work with them in good spirit again, an apology is a must.

Sometimes a man must admit his mistakes, and ask for an apology. Is George W. Bush a man? Honestly, at the moment I don't know.

G.W.B. and his administration started a big mess. It would have to be completely their job to clean it up. It should not have to be the job of the United Nations for example. It makes me angry that already in 2003 the U.S. was trying to get the U.N. to participate more in Iraq, as they saw soon that they were unable to get Iraq under their control. And this happened soon after the U.S. had sidestepped the U.N. in deciding whether to start the war or not. If that alone is not insulting and stupid then what is. I am afraid that in the end the U.N. will need to take control of the situation from G.W.B. and his administration, but it has to happen on one condition: U.S. shall not have anything to say, except through normal U.N. procedures, what will happen in Iraq. It is possible to stabilize Iraq, but as long as the U.S. military is there, it's not going to happen. There are just too many people there who want to shed exactly U.S. blood, and who want to make the life of exactly the U.S. politicians much, much harder.

You can dream on that you'll heard an apology from G.W.B.'s mouths. If by any chance some day we'll hear an apology from some U.S. Government, it certainly won't be from this U.S President and this Administration. And it will never happen that the U.N. will take control over the situation in Iraq in general, this is another very naive expectation. U.S.A. didn't 'liberated' Iraq (and its oil) to give then away the control to some other like this. Though U.N can gain some smaller, more humanitarian role in attempt to bring the situation in Iraq back to normal. And if by any chance this would even happen, that the U.N. would gain a full control over the Iraq, then the situation would be hundred times worst as it is now, we all know how much 'power' and the authority the UN soldiers have in such missions.

Anyways, as I tend to end with this post my participation in this thread, so I'll just add for the end that those who're thinking that the U.S Army and other Coalition troops are there for the enjoyment or because they want to be, are very naive. Even Bush don't want this anymore, but now it's no turning back till the task is complete so to speak; if they retreat now without the situation under control ... I think you can all picture out to yourself what we would had there then. The White House has thinked like we'll invade Iraq (because of the oil reserves there of course - must to add so no one would later ask WHY they invaded Iraq), we'll then install some pro-western puppet government to secure our interests there, then we'll help with restoration of the country (lucrative business), and leave as heroes with a parade on every corner of the Baghdad's streets and with Iraqi's children waving with little U.S paper flags ... But ... they didn't take into consideration every threat such intervention in such region brings along with it. I mean, even I knew what will happen then, after the 'liberation'. Or we can be so naive and think that they didn't anticipate all this, that the Bush's Administration is so shortsided and incompetent? As the current situation shows, is so ...

[baddo 0]

And it will never happen that the U.N. will take control over the situation in Iraq in general, this is another very naive expectation.

I didn't say I expect U.N. to take control of Iraq. I said I am afraid that it will happen, as I don't think the U.S. is capable of handling the situation in Iraq, at least not with the current leaders they have. My country belongs to the U.N. and at that point the whole crisis would become too much my business already, even if no our troops would be there.

It was the U.S. who brought up that the U.N. should have a bigger role in Iraq, not me. So they already realized what kind of hopeless mess they created, and are looking for a way out of it, there is no doubt about that. I do believe that G.W.B. and his administration are really thinking how to get out of Iraq. Now, when they go and ask the U.N. to do something, that annoys the hell out of me. It may turn out that it is the U.N. who can solve the situation into better, I am absolutely certain it won't be the U.S. who makes the situation better, so it must be someone else. Problem is, the U.S. is not willing to give up the control of Iraq, but would like someone to clean up their mess for them. I personally have a big problem with this, and, don't you get me wrong now, I really, really want the U.S. to clean up the mess, not anyone else! But one thing is a fact. How they are currently doing it doesn't work! Read my lips: DOESN'T WORK!

That's what I am trying to message, the problem is, what they are doing is wrong. I am certain the U.N. could do a much better job in reconstruction and humanitarian aid. The U.N. could do a much better job in making sure the Iraqi people feel better. It is for sure not the U.S. military which is going to make anyone feel better. If only they would understand, it is a killing machine and not a reconstruction/democracy tool. Showing people big weapons is not going to make them feel better. Showing people big weapons is not going to make them want democracy.

[Black Sphere 0]

I didn't say I expect U.N. to take control of Iraq. I said I am afraid that it will happen ...

I am afraid that in the end the U.N. will need to take control of the situation from G.W.B. and his administration ...

Yes, you're afraid, but also there's an expectation ("...the U.N will need to take control..."), and if you asking me such kind of fear also contains a healthy dosage of axpectation or hope if you want, which is the same. Baddo, I do read your lips thou I don't quite get it where you got an idea or the info that I said IT DOES WORK.

Quote[/b] ]It was the U.S. who brought up that the U.N. should have a bigger role in Iraq, not me.

Of course, this was an opportunistical, even a smart political move or manouver in trying to transfer or share some of the (mostly financial) load onto other shoulders (you know how they say; to try is not a sin). But control and the influence ... forget it (here you and the others which are expecting such thing to happen are naive). Their plan with U.N. was to give U.N. (the organisation) the role which is capable to carry out - a humanitarian aid (about the reconstruction ... again, forget it), and they would let the U.N. (the world as such) to finace the operation. So, nothing naive from the U.S. there, but a very pragmatical attempt from their perspective.

[baddo 0]

I didn't say you said IT WORKS    where did you get the idea that I said so? Don't answer.

And I think the U.S. actually IS naive when asking U.N. to do something in Iraq, like let the U.N. to do something but still keep the U.S. in the lead of the whole operation. Impossible situation, I think that's not going to work. At least not if the U.S., as I already said, doesn't apologize what they have done. THEN it might be different. USA insulted those same nations in the U.N. and now those nations should in the name of the U.N. come and help, and even pay for it? The U.S. MUST give something very valuable in return, definitely. It's them who started it, it's them who created the whole damn mess. THEY are responsible for this whole situation, NOT the Iraqis, not the other nations in U.N.! Not Al-Qaeda, not Osama, this whole Iraq war was started by the USA! Argh!

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bush says offensive in Iraq just beginning

US President George W. Bush signaled Saturday his unwillingness to consider early US troop reductions in Iraq, saying new offensive operations there were just in their "early stages."

The statement, made in his weekly radio address, followed a fervent plea by John Warner, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who publicly asked the president to initiate by September 15 at least a symbolic drawdown of US military forces from Iraq.

Warner, a former secretary of the Navy and a widely respected authority on military affairs, suggested Thursday the president bring home up to 5,000 US troops as "the first step in a withdrawal of armed forces" in order to "send a sharp and clear message" to the Iraqi government that the US commitment was not open-ended...

Full Article

I like the part at the end, where there's a fairly direct admission that the White House doesn't really care about the contents of Petraeus's report.

[Baff1 0]

The average Iraqi's associate the U.N. with the U.S.

That's why they bombed the U.N. offices in Iraq right at the beginning. (It's not just thge Iraqi's either, the Palestinians burnt down their UN offices also. The U.N. is seen by many around the world as just a pawn of America).

The U.N. has been enforcing sanctions and sending it's spys round to inspect Iraq for decades. Destroying all it's defensive capabilites, ready for invasion.

Troops operating under the UN flag can expect the same welcome as the U.S. forces.

But since no one in the U.N. is willing to send troops any more, those that were, already did and most of them have now left, the point is rather moot.

In fact I think U.N. still refuses to operate in Iraq due to so many of them dying last time it tried.

You can forget the U.N. in Iraq. The closest thing to the U.N. available there is the "coalition of the willing" and they are only making it worse.

As for Bush, he's going all the way.

What kind of a man could live with himself if he admitted that kind of an error.

Oh dear, my mistake, I'm personally responsable for the deaths of 100's of thousands of innocents, thousands of my own countrymen, I've wasted billions of everyones dollars and made my people the most hated on Earth.

Never going to happen.

He will go to his death bed believing with a fervour that he has done everything right.

He has no choice.

He is locked into the events. He will go all the way and America has no chance of changing it's policy in Iraq until he is out of office.

Likewise Petrauses report is never going to say "the surge was a total failure, I've lost at the great expense of the american taxpayer and lives and limbs of my fellows, please sack me immediatly".

The Whitehouse has little to fear from his report. It is other peoples reports made at the same time that will be the intresting ones.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]You can forget the U.N. in Iraq.

That´s not quite accurate.

The UN is operating in Iraq with 95 men in Baghdad right now.

The problem with the UN in Iraq is that neither the US nor the Iraqui forces are willing to protect UN installations and personel.

Right now there are plans to build a new UN office, heavily fortified and protected against bombers and mortar fire.

Unless there is some kind of security at least in the capital, noone will support a UN mission there. The US and Iraq are not able to achieve even this goal, not even speaking of the rest of the country, so sending UN troops there right now would only result

in even more bloodshed.

There are US calls for UN measures, but for me this just looks like a cheap way to get their asses out and put blame on the UN once again, if Iraq collapses.

Btw, I still think that iraq will collapse in the longrun as there are already big players on the scene who are operating for their goals in Iraq.

1. Iran is aiding Shia´s (understandable as Shia´s form the majority of Iran´s population)

2. Saudi Arabia is aiding the Sunnis (as do the US forces)

3. Turkey is very, very cautious about the Kurds in the north who have announced plans for a separate kurdish state.

Take this, add the total chaos US created, look at the inoperational Iraq government, take into account that the US are already shifting the blame for their failed war on the Iraquis themselves and are now searching for volunteers (UN) to deal with the remains of a country that has been taken to it´s status quo by them and nobody else, and you will see that the US call for UN participation is nothing else than a cheap trick to get the responsibilty of their back.

Military involvement of the UN in Iraq is very unlikely though as the war in Iraq was not ratified by the UN, quite the opposite.

Even Iraq´s government is not so happy about a larger role for the UN as it would weaken their own position and could end in a loss of power for them if the UN agrees on a transitional government emplaced by the UN to stop further agitation from governmental rows.

Quote[/b] ]"There is an effort by the United States to try re-internationalize the Iraq venture," said Qubad Talabani, a Kurdish representative in Washington and the son of President Jalal Talabani of Iraq. "I think there would be widespread opposition to the U.N. freelancing in Iraq. Any involvement by the United Nations has to be in very close coordination with the Iraqi government."

Ironically the Pentagon excluded the UN from rebuilding Iraq

back in the good ol days of "who wants a chunk of Iraq".

Now they come running...

With the drawback of british troops from Basra the UN also had to shut down their operations there as noone was left to provide security for the UN personel. In Baghdad the UN is limited to the Green Zone for reasons we all know.

There is a very bitter taste that is still hunting the UN when it comes to Iraq. They agreed to help the US with preparing elections, coordinating them and getting the constitution done.

This made the UN a US tool in Average Iraqui´s eyes and therefore a worthy target. This resulted in the 2003 UN bombing that killed U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello and 21 other U.N. workers who were serving in Iraq, supporting a U.S. military mission the organization had opposed.

If there is a role for the UN in Iraq, it´s the humanitarian aspects of this gone-wrong liberation. I guess I´m not leaning myself out of the window if I say that there will be no military UN contingent enforcing UN decisions in Iraq.

It´s up to the US to do this, not anyone else. The war got started without UN approval, pulling the UN into this mess now might look handy for G.W but is just another cheap try to put blame for the mess on others.

There are no objections to have the UN as a negotiator and mediator between the Iraq fractions, the occupiers and the the neighbouring countries but first it has to be made sure that a UN mission in Iraq is completely secured by the US and Iraq. If there is no security, there can´t be civil UN operations.

Quite interesting:

Escalation in Iraq by numbers

Covers a lot of solid numbers and gives a good portrait of the situation in Iraq.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Bad link.  I would be interested in reading it if you can fix it.  Couldn't find it searching the LA Times sight or their archives.

Was a bit dissapointed that it was from them, its generally a terrible newspaper.

You might want to look this over if you are interested in raw data.

Casualty Statistics

[Balschoiw 0]

Link fixed

It´s Asian Times btw

[Baff1 0]

I'm not really sure I believe it is up to the U.S. to police and rebuild an Iraqi political system and infrastructure.

I think they did their job smashing down the old one. (A massive mistake in my opinion).

I further believe that any new system is being held back by U.S. attempts to impose one artificially.

I think it is reasonable to expect a period of gross national turmoil during this process, in which Iraq may well dissolve, in which factions will vie for power, (probably violently). Faced with no imminant external threat I can't see any reason why it would not.

(Which puts a perspective on Saddams regional aggression).

I think there is the natural order from which all political systems are born.

Local strongmen. Robbers turned robber barons, turned barons, turned kings.

I think U.S./ coalition interference, is only delaying the inevitable. That dampening the current fires, is far worse than letting them burn out.

Prolonging the agony so to speak.

I think all the U.S. is doing currently is shooting every strongman that raises his head above the parapet.

Petraus rules in Iraq and he's not letting go.

I suggest the U.N. association with the U.S. in Iraq has more to do with it's support for the liberation of Kuwait, Operationj Desert Fox, 10 years of bombing, sanctions and inspections than the involvement of a few election specialists.

I think the elections in Iraq were widely well received by the populous.

Voter turnout was incredible by western democratic standards.

To support this theory I looked up a timeline briefly (so apologies in advance if I'm in error), and came up with this.

AUGUST 20, 2003: Attack on United Nations Headquarters in Baghdad

JANUARY 30, 2005: Iraqis vote to form a Transitional National Assembly

Thanks for that article by the way. Intresting read.