The Iraq thread 4

[theavonlady 2]

If violence was the simple solution to terrorism, then Iraq would have been pacified by now and Israel would be the safest country in the world.

1. No one said it's a simple solution but it's a major part of the solution.

2. One of the reasons Israel is not the safest country in the world because Israel has not been determined to win the war here.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]What is new in this article?

It´s the CIA who has changed it´s stance on the WMD issue and not a report that indicates that the CIA was wrong. Now it´s the CIA itself who says so.

Clear enough ?

Quote[/b] ]Repeating the figure over and over again doesn't make it true.

It´s at least that true that a majority of the Brits want an inquiry on the number of civillian deaths caused by the war.

Britons back Iraqi toll inquiry

And "hawaireporter" is not on my list of credible sources...

How about these Avon :

BBC news

Quote[/b] ]Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.

A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.

Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000.

The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing".

Responding to the Lancet article, a Pentagon spokesman defended coalition action in Iraq.

Herald Tribune

Quote[/b] ]More than 100,000 civilians have probably died as direct or indirect consequences of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to a study by a research team at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

.

The report was published on the Internet by The Lancet, the British medical journal. The figure is far higher than previous mortality estimates. Editors of the journal decided not to wait for The Lancet's normal publication date next week, but instead to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the U.S. presidential election.

.

The finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since the Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands.

.

In the study, teams of researchers fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 previously selected locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.

.

Although the paper's authors acknowledge that thorough data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect are extensive: Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it. Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes.

.

"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins study team. He said the team had excluded deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, since that city was the site of unusually intense violence.

.

In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in the family since the conflict started in March 2003. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by coalition forces - mostly airstrikes - and most of the reported deaths were of women and children.

.

The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers found.

.

"The fact that more than half of the deaths caused by the occupation forces were women and children is a cause for concern," the authors wrote.

.

The team included researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies as well as doctors from Al Mustansiriya University Medical School in Baghdad.

.

There is bound to be skepticism about the estimate of 100,000 excess deaths, which translates into an average of 166 excess deaths a day since the invasion. But some were not surprised.

.

"I am emotionally shocked, but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," said Scott Lipscomb, an associate professor at Northwestern University.

.

Lipscomb works on a Web site called www.iraqbodycount.net. That project, which collates only media-reported deaths, currently puts the death toll at just under 17,000. "We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," Lipscomb said.

.

The researchers were highly technical in their selection of interview sites and data analysis, although interview locations were limited somewhat by the researchers' decision to cut down driving time when statistically possible to minimize risk to the interviewers.

.

Of course it does make a difference for Avon if 20 000 civillians or 100 000 civillians were killed because of claims that have been admittedly proven untrue. You know what´s such called in western nation ? It´s called genocide. If you kill large numbers of people who are not guilty of anything and do so with fals e reasons you commit genocide.

When Saddam gassed the Kurds it was called genocide, when the Coaltion of the willingly blind killed at least over 20 000 Iraqis it´s called a mistake ?  

No, it´s not even called a mistake, it´s freedom and democracy !

"You have to understand that we have to kill thousands of civillians to bring freedom and democracy!" Is that what you are trying to say Avon ?    

It´s not that Coaltion troops had been very selective on killing people in Iraq lately...

Quote[/b] ].... and show Clinton appointee Tennet the door.

That´s such a no-brainer...

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Repeating the figure over and over again doesn't make it true.

It´s at least that true that a majority of the Brits want an inquiry on the number of civillian deaths caused by the war.

That's fine.

Quote[/b] ]And "hawaireporter" is not on my list of credible sources...

Can you scientifically respond to their rebuttal or not?

Quote[/b] ]How about these Avon

Yes, more of the same repetition.

Quote[/b] ]The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing".

Yes. Very convincing.

Not.

Quote[/b] ]URL=http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/29/news/toll.html]Herald Tribune[/url]

Quote[/b] ]More than 100,000 civilians have probably died as direct or indirect consequences of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to a study by a research team at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

.

The report was published on the Internet by The Lancet, the British medical journal.

Repeating the repeated.

For a contrasting opinion that takes into account numerous sources, go to the Brookings Institute.

Quote[/b] ]Of course it does make a difference for Avon if 20 000 civillians or 100 000 civillians were killed because of claims that have been admittedly proven untrue. You know what´s such called in western nation ? It´s called genocide.

Numbers alone do not determine whether mass killing is Genocide. One only has to look at yesterday's latest U.N. imbicility to see that it's more than just a numbers game (with the UN not admitting this is the case in Darfur).

Quote[/b] ]If you kill large numbers of people who are not guilty of anything and do so with false reasons you commit genocide.

Here's Dictionary.com's defintion of Genocide:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Please substantiate your claims. You're sounding as clumsy as CNN's Eason Jordan.

Quote[/b] ]When Saddam gassed the Kurds it was called genocide, when the Coaltion of the willingly blind killed at least over 20 000 Iraqis it´s called a mistake ?  

It's called a war or there isn't one? And how many were killed by the coalition versus terrorists?

Quote[/b] ]No, it´s not even called a mistake, it´s freedom and democracy !

No, it's called fighting for freedom. When the fight is won, there's a greater potential for those freedoms. Hopefully, the recent successful Iraqi elections, with most Iraqis jubulating over the freedom to chose the first time in their lives, is a milestone indicating Iraq's going in the right direction.

Quote[/b] ]"You have to understand that we have to kill thousands of civillians to bring freedom and democracy!" Is that what you are trying to say Avon ?    

No. You have to realize that a lot of people are going to get killed in a war, when terrorists on the other side resort to cover in urban areas and terrorize an entire country.

Quote[/b] ]It´s not that Coaltion troops had been very selective on killing people in Iraq lately...

Fallujah is selective. Mosul is selective. Najaf is selective.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ].... and show Clinton appointee Tennet the door.

That´s such a no-brainer...

But it's an important step. And it's an admittance that the US' security services did shoddy work. The question is now whether they still are or will. I'm not convinced that they wisened up enough.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Can you scientifically respond to their rebuttal or not?

Am I a scientist ? Are you a scientist ? The Lancet is quite a credible source of info as even the British government believes in them and take for granted what they scientifically research, so I would indeed say they are credible.

Quote[/b] ]Yes. Very convincing.

Obviously, as leading experts and politicians do take their reports seriously.

Quote[/b] ]For a contrasting opinion that takes into account numerous sources, go to the Brookings Institute.

Where is the contrast ?

Quote[/b] ]Please substantiate your claims

Why should I ? Because you want it ?

Hehe, I´ll play your game here and just ignore it. Should be common to you.

Quote[/b] ]It's called a war or there isn't one?

Really ? Where is the front ? Where are the war-parties ?

Quote[/b] ]And how many were killed by the coalition versus terrorists?

The Iraqi Health ministry has a clear answer on that.

Better say, he had as he was told to not count the deaths anymore, but you surely can remember his latest numbers, can´t you ? Amnesia again ?

Quote[/b] ]No, it's called fighting for freedom. When the fight is won, there's a greater potential for those freedoms. Hopefully, the recent successful Iraqi elections, with most Iraqis jubulating over the freedom to chose the first time in their lives, is a milestone indicating Iraq's going in the right direction.

What a load of crap...

Quote[/b] ]No. You have to realize that a lot of people are going to get killed in a war, when terrorists on the other side resort to cover in urban areas and terrorize an entire country.

Aha. And what exactly made Iraq a safehaven for terrorists ?

Wasn´t that exactly the war we are talking about ? Wasn´t it the incompetence and arrogance of the TBA that led Iraq to where it is today, with all the people dying ? Wasn´t it the underestimation of consequences that led to the situiation ? Wasn´t it the half-hearted strategy (Rumsfeld wanted to invade with 5000 soldiers) that led to all this ?

No ?

Quote[/b] ]Fallujah is selective. Mosul is selective. Najaf is selective.

Sure...and it has helped so much...

Quote[/b] ]I'm not convinced that they wisened up enough.

The question is not if they have wisened up enough but who tells them what to say. That has not changed. In fact Rumsy got his own little undercover force setup, so the indications for an even more beefed up situation are there.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Can you scientifically respond to their rebuttal or not?

Am I a scientist ? Are you a scientist ? The Lancet is quite a credible source of info as even the British government believes in them and take for granted what they scientifically research, so I would indeed say they are credible.

This was already discussed here. Flip back a few hundred posts.

And all the other's, with much lower figures aren't credible? But you pass off one opinion as a given fact. Wonder what your motivation is....................

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Yes. Very convincing.

Obviously, as leading experts and politicians do take their reports seriously.

Maybe they take all the others more seriously.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]For a contrasting opinion that takes into account numerous sources, go to the Brookings Institute.

Where is the contrast ?

Page 7 or thereabouts.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Please substantiate your claims

Why should I ? Because you want it ?

Hehe, I´ll play your game here and just ignore it. Should be common to you.

Thank you for your candid answer.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]It's called a war or there isn't one?

Really ? Where is the front ? Where are the war-parties ?

Well you've stumped us all now, haven't you.

Right. There's no front. There are no "war parties". In fact there's no war.

Obviously the air was thin up high in Afghanistan's mountains.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And how many were killed by the coalition versus terrorists?

The Iraqi Health ministry has a clear answer on that.

Better say, he had as he was told to not count the deaths anymore, but you surely can remember his latest numbers, can´t you ? Amnesia again ?

I'm sorry.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]No, it's called fighting for freedom. When the fight is won, there's a greater potential for those freedoms. Hopefully, the recent successful Iraqi elections, with most Iraqis jubulating over the freedom to chose the first time in their lives, is a milestone indicating Iraq's going in the right direction.

What a load of crap...

Yeh. Freedom's a waste. Tell that to all those enthused Iraqis. Keep on knocking the wind out of their hopes - you and all your cohorts.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]No. You have to realize that a lot of people are going to get killed in a war, when terrorists on the other side resort to cover in urban areas and terrorize an entire country.

Aha. And what exactly made Iraq a safehaven for terrorists ?

Wasn´t that exactly the war we are talking about ? Wasn´t it the incompetence and arrogance of the TBA that led Iraq to where it is today, with all the people dying ? Wasn´t it the underestimation of consequences that led to the situiation ? Wasn´t it the half-hearted strategy (Rumsfeld wanted to invade with 5000 soldiers) that led to all this ?

No ?

A good portion of it is. Another good portion was the world's innaction to Saddam's stalling tactics. As Mark Steyn recently stated in Iraq is going to be just fine:

Quote[/b] ]If you want a good example of excessive deference to the established order, look no further than Iraq. I'm often asked about the scale of the insurgency and doesn't this prove we armchair warriors vastly underestimated things, etc. I usually reply that, if you rummage through the archives, you'll find that I wanted the liberation of Iraq to occur before the end of August 2002. The bulk of the military were already in place, sitting in the Kuwaiti desert twiddling their thumbs. But Bush was prevailed upon to go ''the extra mile'' at the United Nations mainly for the sake of Tony Blair, and thanks to the machinations of Chirac, Schroeder and Co., the extra mile wound up being the scenic route through six months of diplomatic gridlock while Washington gamely auditioned any casus belli that might win the favor of the president of Guinea's witch doctor. As we know, all that happened during that period was that the hitherto fringe ''peace'' movement vastly expanded and annexed most of the Democratic Party.

Given all that went on in America, Britain, France, etc., during the interminable ''extra mile,'' it would be idiotic to assume that, with an almighty invasion force squatting on his borders for six months, Saddam just sat there listening to his Sinatra LPs. He was very busy, as were the Islamists, and Iran, and Syria.

The result is not only an insurgency far more virulent than it would have been had Washington followed my advice rather than Tony's and gone in in August 2002, but also a broader range of enemies that learned a lot about how ''world'' -- i.e., European -- opinion could be played off against Washington..

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Fallujah is selective. Mosul is selective. Najaf is selective.

Sure...and it has helped so much...

Every bit helps. And people, though few, voted in those places as well and were quoted as being proud and happy about it, too.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not convinced that they wisened up enough.

The question is not if they have wisened up enough but who tells them what to say. That has not changed. In fact Rumsy got his own little undercover force setup, so the indications for an even more beefed up situation are there.

We shall see.

Out for the evening.

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Obviously the air was thin up high in Afghanistan's mountains.

No need for that at all.

Bals was doing something that he might not agree with, but was doing so as it was his duty. Engaging snipers and RPG toting militants can't be a barrel of laughs can it. It might not have been your intention, but it comes over as a rather mocking gesture to what he did when deployed.

So instead of preaching your grand vision of things, grab yourself a rifle and head to Iraq 'to do what must be done'. (Your a US citizen, go sign up!) Then we can make snide comments about you too!

Or you can sit behind your PC and just piss people off....

[ralphwiggum 6]

or we can keep this thread civil by not getting into flame war.

[billybob2002 0]

or we can keep this thread civil by not getting into flame war.

Read my updated sig...

Anyway, back to Iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/29/embassy.detainees/index.html

Quote[/b] ]

Surveillance aids capture of embassy suspects

Saturday, January 29, 2005 Posted: 11:55 PM EST (0455 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Seven suspected insurgents were being held in connection with a rocket attack on the U.S. Embassy in central Baghdad that killed an American military service member and a civilian, U.S. military officials said.

Task Force Baghdad soldiers captured the suspects at a house about an hour after the attack, which occurred at 7:45 p.m. (11:45 a.m. ET), amid heavy security ahead of Sunday's landmark elections. (Election preview)

Five other Americans were wounded when a rocket hit a building connected to the embassy's annex. The embassy is in the fortified Green Zone, home to Iraqi government offices and military headquarters for Iraqi and coalition forces. (Full story)

An aerial video recorded several suspects firing a rocket, then running to a home in southeast Baghdad, where 1st Cavalry Division soldiers found an expended rocket tube, according to a written statement from the coalition press office.

"This was a great example of quick reaction on the part of some superb cavalry troopers," said Brig. Gen. Michael Jones, assistant division commander for the 1st Cavalry Division and Task Force Baghdad. "It's one more example to the insurgents that Iraqi and multinational forces will hunt down those responsible for these acts of terrorism."

I wonder if somebody had a itchy finger. (a news station said it was a AH-64)

[denoir 0]

And how many were killed by the coalition versus terrorists?

2:1

[source]

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK An exclusive report from Knight Ridder's Washington office, which has gained much renown for this sort of thing in the past year, revealed Saturday that U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis, most of them civilians, as attacks by insurgents.

The statistics were compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder.

Iraqi officials said about two-thirds of the Iraqi deaths were caused by the U.S. side and police; the remaining third died from insurgent attacks.

This of course did not include the actual war, but from April to September 2004. Note that this isn't the same thing that the BBC reported this year.

Strikes me as kind of funny. In September 2004 they release very similar figures and insist on the civilians counted are just civilians and that they're strictly counting insurgents in a different category. They make the conclusion that the US/Iraqi forces kill twice as many civilians as their insurgent counterparts. Of course, the shit hits the fan and for a while they get ordered to stop counting the casualties. The report is of course not very well received in Washington.

Now in January, they release another one, but insist that no interpretations can be made. Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd? They were so sure in Septeber about their data, but not now

Although it doesn't take too much brain to read between the lines. Deaths as a result of "military action"? Which side drops 2000 lbs bombs in residential areas?

[theavonlady 2]

And how many were killed by the coalition versus terrorists?

2:1

[source]

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK An exclusive report from Knight Ridder's Washington office, which has gained much renown for this sort of thing in the past year, revealed Saturday that U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis, most of them civilians, as attacks by insurgents.

The statistics were compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder.

Iraqi officials said about two-thirds of the Iraqi deaths were caused by the U.S. side and police; the remaining third died from insurgent attacks.

This of course did not include the actual war, but from April to September 2004.

And I already replied above that I'm sorry. KR has/had the same misunderstanding as the BBC.

[denoir 0]

Yeah, read my edited reply.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]And all the other's, with much lower figures aren't credible? But you pass off one opinion as a given fact. Wonder what your motivation is....................

I´m simply failing where you are going as I already said that the 100.000 is an estimated number. I even posted it. So you better read, before you try to put words into my mouth.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe they take all the others more seriously.

They obviously don´t. If you had read the source, you´d know...

Quote[/b] ]Thank you for your candid answer.

You´re welcome, Avon.

Quote[/b] ]Well you've stumped us all now, haven't you.

Right. There's no front. There are no "war parties". In fact there's no war.

Obviously the air was thin up high in Afghanistan's mountains.

Excuse me, but wasn´t it the TBA that declared victory and major combat operations over ? So maybe you should ask them and not me.

Besides that, you´re riding a bullet you can´t handle if you´re trying to start a flamewar here. I guess a regular war a year is enough for me. Go find another one you can play sandbox warfare with.

I´m not interested.

And yes, this is no longer a regular war. This is insurgents vs intruders. That makes a significant difference. Maybe you can understand when you look at the "How much do we like the US" - polls conducted in Iraq. But I know, yeah, they´re all made up and irrelevant as the crowds are gathering at the streets to throw flowers and cheer for more...

THEY WANT THE US OUT OF THE COUNTRY !

Such things don´t happen for no reason. They want them out. Didn´t you know that ?!?

The words freedom and democracy don´t come to Ali Iraqi´s mind when he thinks of the US. He thinks of death, bombing, imprisonment, torture and abuse. Not that none of that happened...nono.

Quote[/b] ]Tell that to all those enthused Iraqis.

Yes I will tell them next time they dance around cheering...in the remains of an APC or HMMV. That´s when the cheer. I haven´t seen much cheering during or after the elections, besides the celebrations of Islam - bound voters who await the Islamic republic of Iraq to be established. Guess what ? That will never happen. Guess why ? Because they will not be allowed to have an iranian -friendly - islamic state. As the Kurds will not be allowed to have their separate status. So where is the freedom ?

The vote changed nothing but only worsened the situation. Now there is a big cut through the country because of the vote and that´s what the war and the political mess is responsible for. The TBA is responsible for anyone killed in Iraq since they were the ones who created the situation. There were no terrorists in Iraq prior the war. But they are there now. They certainly didn´t come to Iraq because the security was so tight. And even the vote only reached 50 percent of the country. 50 percent. That´s only half of Iraq´s people. Do you think the rest will just sip tea and let others decide who runs the business in Iraq ? We talk about a hell lot of resources and we talk about a puppet US government. Do you think that the people will take that ? They´ve had enough of Saddam and they know how it looks and tastes when they are forced into something. You can´t expect that they stay calm and let others decide about their lives. I really wonder how someone can NOT see that.

Quote[/b] ]Another good portion was the world's innaction to Saddam's stalling tactics.

That´s just some blatant bull as the world was acting and was forced out of WMD-FREE Iraq by some Gunslingers.

Don´t you remember all that funny Powerpoint presentations of mobile biological warfare labs and the 45 minute threat and all that. I mean everyone knew it was nonsense. Everyone. But still some noobs take it for granted and see no problem with that. I´d say the US has to shut up for the next 50 years when it comes to staged reasons for a war that has never been necessary. You know, Hitler made up the polish attack on germany to justify the invasion of poland. And all that "evidence" and "hard fact" and "bulletproof evidence" ("The WMD´s are north, south east and west of Bagdad", Rumsfeld) that Iraq will bomb the UK to bits within 45 minutes and crash an armada of hijacked planes filled with chemical and biological agents into Disneyland and that Iraq is close to THE bomb turned out to be nothing than bullshit. It wasn´t only one "error". It was a made up case. And that´s what it will always be. There is only little chance that all that "errors" happened, taking into account that all the services worldwide shared their intel and said that it´s just not true. Not only Japan, Egypt, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Russia and China did so. All of them were sure, that there was no threat from Iraq at that time. And you know what ? They were obviously right. They were right about the threat and they were right about the outcome of the war. How can you still ignore that and sing your song in the dark woods. Eat it, it has been the biggest intentional "error" that lead to a war in the last 50 years.

And you want to sell us that the US are celebrated there. For sure. That´s what we see every day.

Quote[/b] ]Every bit helps. And people, though few, voted in those places as well and were quoted as being proud and happy about it, too.

Wow, great. Why don´t you just travel there and see how Fallujah for example looks today ? A real cosy place.

Quote[/b] ]We shall see.

We will see. And that´s what I´m afraid of most.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.dvidshub.net/vids/0501/DOD_N05013103.wmv

^^^short vid on the embassy attack.

[Balschoiw 0]

Sunni group terms next govt illegal

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Feb 2: Influential Sunni religious leaders on Wednesday branded Iraq's election illegitimate as the electoral commission admitted there were flaws in the vote.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice predicted a new spirit of international cooperation for Iraq after the elections on Sunday, but she refused to speak of a US exit strategy.

On the ground, insurgents renewed their attacks after a period of relative calm following the polls with a high turnout despite a string of bombings and mortar attacks that killed at least 36 people.

Iraq's President Ghazi Al-Yawar said on Tuesday it would be "complete nonsense" to ask US and other foreign troops to leave the country now. As the massive security election clampdown was eased, a Shia political leader escaped an assassination attempt in the holy city of Najaf, at least eight people were killed in a string of attacks around the so-called Sunni triangle and an oil pipeline was sabotaged.

Iraqi and US officials have urged the country's various communities to unite after the polls, the first since Saddam Hussein was toppled in a US-led war in 2003. But the Committee of Muslim Scholars, the premier organization of Sunni religious leaders across Iraq, poured cold water on hopes for an end to the community's hard line stance against the US-imposed experiment of democracy in Iraq.

The association, which called for a Sunni boycott of the election, said the next government would lack the authority to write a new constitution laying out the framework for a post-Saddam future.

"These elections lack legitimacy because a huge portion of the population boycotted and this tells us the national assembly and the coming government will not have the legitimacy required for writing the constitution, or concluding security and trade agreements," the committee said.

It stopped short of slamming the door and offered a tentative olive branch to the next government in acknowledgement of the millions of Iraqis who braved Sunday's violence, saying it would have "limited authority".

As Iraq waited for the final vote tally, the election commission said it was investigating remedies to the fact that tens of thousands of people were unable to vote due to a shortage of ballot papers.

Yawar told a press conference on Tuesday that "tens of thousands were not able to vote for the lack of ballots", with the problems mainly in Mosul, Basra, Baghdad and Najaf.

Abdul Hussein al-Hindawi, chairman of the electoral commission, also acknowledged problems in Sunni areas where polling stations had not opened or not enough ballots had been distributed in Nineveh, Salaheddin and Tamim provinces.

In an effort to reach out to the disenchanted Sunni population, Yawar, a tribal sheikh from Mosul, insisted there was consensus that his post would be retained by his fellow Sunnis in the next cabinet. -AFP

So much for the great election.

Bin Laden deputy 'urges holy war' after election

Quote[/b] ]Osama bin Laden's top deputy has purportedly delivered another verdict on the Iraq election, saying holy war, not forged elections, was the only path for reform in Islamic nations.

A written statement, said to have been the transcript of an audio recording of a speech by al-Qa'ida's number two, Ayman al-Zawahri, appeared on several Islamist internet sites on Tuesday.

Zawahri reportedly says: "Reform can't be achieved under governments installed by the [foreign] occupier through rigged elections conducted under the supervision of the United Nations and protected by B-52s and Apache helicopter rockets. There is no reform except through holy war."

It was not immediately possible to authenticate the statement as the tape was inaccessible on the militant websites where it had been posted.

Islamic militants led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qa'ida's leader in Iraq, claimed responsibility for suicide bombings and attacks against polling stations in Sunday's election.

I wonder how many times AQ will be screaming for Jihad over the next months. Kind of repetative....but maybe another "Go" signal for insurgent groups as some of the latest AQ statements have been.

Documents: U.S. condoned Iraq oil smuggling

Haha this must be a real slap in the face of those Annan haters here. Go, slap your government !

Quote[/b] ]CNN) -- Documents obtained by CNN reveal the United States knew about, and even condoned, embargo-breaking oil sales by Saddam Hussein's regime, and did so to shore up alliances with Iraq's neighbors.

The oil trade with countries such as Turkey and Jordan appears to have been an open secret inside the U.S. government and the United Nations for years.

The unclassified State Department documents sent to congressional committees with oversight of U.S. foreign policy divulge that the United States deemed such sales to be in the "national interest," even though they generated billions of dollars in unmonitored revenue for Saddam's regime.

The trade also generated a needed source of oil and commerce for Iraq's major trading partners, Turkey and Jordan.

"It was in the national security interest, because we depended on the stability in Turkey and the stability in Jordan in order to encircle Saddam Hussein," Edward Walker, a former assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, told CNN when asked about the memo documents.

"We had a great amount of cooperation with the Jordanians on the intelligence side, and with the Turks as well, so we were getting value out of the relationship," said Walker, who served in both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

The memos obtained by CNN explain why both administrations waived restrictions on U.S. economic aid to those countries for engaging in otherwise prohibited trade with Iraq.

The justifications came at a time when the United States was a staunch backer of U.N. sanctions on Iraq imposed after it invaded Kuwait in 1990.

"Despite United Nations Security Council Resolutions," a 1998 memo signed by President Clinton's deputy secretary of state, Strobe Talbott, said, "Jordan continues to import oil from Iraq."

But Jordan had a "lack of economically viable alternatives" to Iraqi oil, Talbott's memo said.

Talbott's memo lauded Jordan's commitment to the Middle East peace process, citing the late King Hussein's personal efforts to broker a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

"Timely, reliable assistance from the United States fosters the political stability and economic well-being critical to Jordan's continuing role as a regional leader for peace," Talbott said.

Identical language was used four years later in a 2002 memo by Richard Armitage, undersecretary of state under President George W. Bush.

"Jordan has made clear its choice for peace and normalization with Israel," Armitage said, calling Jordan "an important U.S. friend" and citing its 2001 free trade treaty with the United States.

"U.S. assistance provides the Jordanian government needed flexibility to pursue policies that are of critical importance to U.S. national security and to foreign policy objectives in the Middle East," Armitage said.

Economic and military ties to Turkey were cited by Talbott and Armitage in justifying waivers of U.S. penalties to Iraq's northern neighbor. Indeed, their memos advocated hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the U.S. allies.

Talbott's memo praised Turkey for deploying troops to the peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia, policing heroin trafficking through Turkey, and cooperating with enforcement of the "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq by allowing U.S. and British jets to use Incirlik, Turkey, as a base.

Armitage's memo said Turkey "provides irreplaceable assistance in countering the threat the Baghdad regime poses" and lauded the U.S. ally for sending troops to Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

"The primacy of Turkey's role as a front-line ally in the war on terrorism is expected to assume even greater prominence and urgency as the global war on terrorism continues," Armitage said.

Deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told CNN Tuesday the waivers were given to Jordan and Turkey every year since 1998.

He called both countries "special cases" in which the money Saddam made through the smuggling did not allow him weapons.

"With Jordan and Turkey the circumstances were unique," Ereli said. "We approached them in a way that preserved key alliances and didn't help the regime of Saddam Hussein."

He added that Saddam's smuggling to Syria, which the United States tried to curtail, raised far more concerns because of the possibility of "dual use" goods reaching Iraq.

Illicit revenue

Estimates of how much revenue Iraq earned from these tolerated side sales of its oil to Jordan and Turkey, as well as to Syria and Egypt, range from $5.7 billion to $13.6 billion.

This illicit revenue far exceeds the estimates of what Saddam pocketed through illegal surcharges on his U.N.-approved oil exports and illegal kickbacks on subsequent Iraqi purchases of food, medicine, and supplies -- $1.7 billion to $4.4 billion -- during the maligned seven-year U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq.

The Government Accountability Office estimated last July that Iraq earned $5.7 billion from smuggling oil out of the country, especially to Jordan, Turkey, and Syria between 1996 and 2002.

A CIA-backed Iraq Survey Group report by former Iraq weapons inspector Charles Duelfer estimated last October that Saddam acquired $8 billion by smuggling oil to Jordan, Turkey, Syria, and Egypt through 2003, when oil for food ended with the toppling of Saddam.

The Senate Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations estimated last November that the Iraqi regime earned $13.6 billion by smuggling oil during the sanctions period it defined as 1991-2003, or five years before oil-for-food started.

The oil-for-food program is being investigated by U.S. congressional committees, the Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a special committee appointed by the United Nations and led by former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Paul Volcker.

Volcker's committee is to issue an interim report on Thursday. (Full story)

In an interview last month with the U.S.-based Arabic-language TV station Al Hurrah, Volcker said, "The big figures are smuggling, which took place before the oil-for-food program started, and it continued while the oil-for-food program was in place."

'Either silent or complicit'

Rep. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, one of five panels probing the oil-for-food program, told CNN the United States was "complicit in undermining" the U.N. sanctions on Iraq.

"How is it that you stand on a moral footing to go after the U.N. when they're responsible for 15 percent maybe of the ill-gotten gains, and we were part and complicit of him getting 85 percent of the money?" Menendez asked.

"Where was our voice on the committee that was overseeing this on the Security Council?

"The reality is that we were either silent or complicit, and that is fundamentally wrong."

Former State Department diplomat Walker said, "It was almost a 'don't ask, don't tell' kind of policy. It was accepted in the Security Council. No one challenged it."

John Ruggie, a former senior adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, said U.S. diplomats focused on assuring U.N.-approved shipments to Iraq were free of military components, and the United States felt Jordan and Turkey needed to be compensated for the adverse impact of the sanctions.

Ruggie said, "The secretary of state of the United States said each and every year that those illegal sales were in the national security interest of the United States. So it wasn't just that the U.S. was looking the other way."

Bullseye !

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wonder how many times AQ will be screaming for Jihad over the next months. Kind of repetative....but maybe another "Go" signal for insurgent groups as some of the latest AQ statements have been.

Sorry,but I have to doubt the influence Al-Queda has upon the Iraqi insurgency.

From all media sources it is clear that their organisation can't put up a fraction of the fight the rebels in Iraq are in their own battleground(Afghanistan) where they sweared the US infidels will get the same taste of jihaad the soviets got in the '80s-a comparation of US casualties,attacks on the both nations security forces,car bombs all seem to point that the they are not nearly as powerful and competent as the Iraqis even though Al-Queda is involved in Iraq it's influence is limited.

Maybe you could confirm it since you have a better grasp of information as you have served there.

[Balschoiw 0]

I don´t want to lead this thread abraod, but the AQ presence in Afgha is/has to a certain extend broken down. The Mujahedin are still doing their business under Warlords payrole but AQ has lost significant power in Afghanistan as they are permanently hunted. Maybe they just vanished within the population but right now the operational capability of AQ forces within Afghanistan is limited due to a climate change within the population. Anyway AQ is no country bound organization. In fact it´s no coherent worldwide organization at all. The AQ´s are trained to perform their acts of terrorism independant of the command structure and do have selfdirecting cells.

In Iraq though there are AQ structures at work. It´s bit funny though, that those structures grouped with AQ after they started to fight for their objectives. It´s not that AQ built up the resistance, but they joined the AQ line after they started.

S AQ imo has influence on the things that happen in Iraq today while their influence in Afghanistan has been reduced significant.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bullseye !

Yep, it proves that the UN is an paper tiger.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bullseye !

Yep, it proves that the UN is an paper tiger.

Yeah thats the lesson.

Try that the US is a hypocrite for using the illegalities of the Food For Oil program against the UN when we were profiting (we as in the US of A) from it 6x as much.

How is it in an article about the US profiting illegally from the Food for Oil program you deduced that the UN is "a paper tiger."

Reading comprehension suffering much?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bullseye !

Yep, it proves that the UN is an paper tiger.

Yeah thats the lesson.  

Try that the US is a hypocrite for using the illegalities of the Food For Oil program against the UN when we were profiting (we as in the US of A) from it 6x as much.

How is it in an article about the US profiting illegally from the Food for Oil program you deduced that the UN is "a paper tiger."  

Reading comprehension suffering much?

Are the ones leading the investigation are/were apart of the TCA and/or TBA?

I guess you lack reading comprehension. The USA did profit from allowing other countries doing it in return of other things (not cash but intel and other reasons) from those countries. They went in to the gray area of life. Furthermore,

Quote[/b] ]The oil trade with countries such as Turkey and Jordan appears to have been an open secret inside the U.S. government and the United Nations for years.

Also,

Quote[/b] ]Former State Department diplomat Walker said, "It was almost a 'don't ask, don't tell' kind of policy. It was accepted in the Security Council. No one challenged it."

Alot of countries knew about and did not lift a finger or expose it. So, paper tiger.

[Akira 0]

So how does that show the UN as a paper tiger? It shows the corruption of the countries involved. The UN stands for "United Nations" in case ya forgot, and can only be as strong as the nations that make it up. If the US was cheating and lying, it does not reflect on the UN....it reflects on us!

The US and UK had numerous analyists pouring over the food for oil purchases, and mentioned no discrepancies in the purchases unless they had to do with the ever-feared "dual purpose" items. If the US was really so concerned about the corruption of the food for oil program, it had years to bring it up. Instead it chose to profit from it.

Clearly this is nothing by anti-UN propoganda by Bush & Co.

EDIT: One Page On Food For Oil

[billybob2002 0]

So how does that show the UN as a paper tiger? It shows the corruption of the countries involved. The UN stands for "United Nations" in case ya forgot, and can only be as strong as the nations that make it up. If the US was cheating and lying, it does not reflect on the UN....it reflects on us!

The US and UK had numerous analyists pouring over the food for oil purchases, and mentioned no discrepancies in the purchases unless they had to do with the ever-feared "dual purpose" items. If the US was really so concerned about the corruption of the food for oil program, it had years to bring it up. Instead it chose to profit from it.

Clearly this is nothing by anti-UN propoganda by Bush & Co.

Isn't the UN supposed to monitor the Food for Oil program? It is not US or Germany or France or etc's Food for Oil program but it's UN. The UN knew about it and did not do a thing. Did they expose it in public? No. But, a US investigation by congress did. Keep the belief that it is anti-UN propaganda by TBA.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Keep the belief that it is anti-UN propaganda by TBA.

Well was there any other reason to bring up all these others than to get Kofi out of office ? Wasn´t that the initial US demand ? I guess it hasn´t changed much.

The funny thing is that it backfired at the USA pretty bad.  

Quote[/b] ]Isn't the UN supposed to monitor the Food for Oil program?

Little lesson for guys who don´t seem to know exactly how the UN acts.

The UN security council, including the USA had knowledge of all the fishy deals. The USA in particular supported the abuse of the food for oil program. So what can the UN do if some of their members decide to run their own program on abusal ?

It will bring it to the security council. And guess what : It will not even make it onto the "to-do" list as the same guys who abused the program will wipe it of the list in no time.

Maybe you want to read the article again and then talk.

Edit:

As some people seem to have problems to keep content in their head while flipping a page, her´s your special reminder:

Quote[/b] ]'Either silent or complicit'

Rep. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, one of five panels probing the oil-for-food program, told CNN the United States was "complicit in undermining" the U.N. sanctions on Iraq.

"How is it that you stand on a moral footing to go after the U.N. when they're responsible for 15 percent maybe of the ill-gotten gains, and we were part and complicit of him getting 85 percent of the money?" Menendez asked.

"Where was our voice on the committee that was overseeing this on the Security Council?

"The reality is that we were either silent or complicit, and that is fundamentally wrong."

...

"The secretary of state of the United States said each and every year that those illegal sales were in the national security interest of the United States. So it wasn't just that the U.S. was looking the other way."

So who´s the paper tiger ?

Edit II:

Right after the AQ adress to Iraq´s insurgents:

Insurgents kill 28 in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]

....

Insurgents had eased up on attacks following the elections, when American and Iraqi forces imposed sweeping security measures. But starting Wednesday night, guerrillas launched a string of dramatic attacks.

In the deadliest incident, insurgents stopped a minibus south of Kirkuk, ordered army recruits off the vehicle and gunned down 12 of them, said Maj.-Gen. Anwar Mohammed Amin. Two soldiers were allowed to go free, ordered by the rebels to warn others against joining Iraq's U.S.-backed security forces, he said.

The assailants identified themselves as members of Takfir wa Hijra, the name of an Islamic group that emerged in the 1960s in Egypt, rejecting society as corrupt and seeking to establish a utopian Islamic community.

Elsewhere, gunmen fired on a vehicle carrying Iraqi contractors Thursday to jobs at a U.S. military base in Baqouba north of the capital, killing two people, officials said.

A suicide car bomber struck a foreign convoy escorted by military Humvees on Baghdad's dangerous airport road Thursday, destroying several vehicles and damaging a house, Iraqi police said. Helicopters were seen evacuating some casualties, witnesses said. There was no immediate comment from the U.S. military.

Also, the bodies of two slain men wearing blood-soaked clothes were found in the western insurgent stronghold of Ramadi. A handwritten note tucked into the shirt of one of the men claimed the two were Iraqi National Guardsmen.

Car bombs also targeted a house used by U.S. military snipers in Qaim, near the Syrian border, a U.S. convoy in Mosul and British troops in the southern city of Basra. Two soldiers were wounded in Mosul.

Other attacks in Baghdad, the northern town of Tal Afar and the southern city of Samawah killed four Iraqis. A roadside bomb exploded near the car of the governor of Anbar province Thursday in Ramadi. Gov. Qaoud al-Namrawi was not harmed, but a woman was injured when his guards opened fire.

The postelection lull in attacks had prompted Allawi to declare that the vote's success dealt a major blow to the insurgency.

"The coming days and weeks will show whether this trend will continue," he told Iraqi television. "But the final outcome will be failure. They will continue for months, but this (insurgency) will end."

Iraqis turned out in large numbers to vote for the National Assembly, provincial councils and a regional parliament for the autonomous Kurdish north. But in large areas of the country where the Sunni Arab-led insurgency still roils, few went to the polls, either because of objections to the holding elections under foreign occupation or for fear of retribution.

The results released Thursday represented partial counts from six provinces, ranging from 25 per cent of Baghdad's votes to 70 per cent of the votes in the sparsely populated province of Muthanna.

According to the count, the Alliance was running first and Allawi's list second in all six provinces. In Baghdad province, for example, the Alliance was leading 3-1 over Allawi. It was not clear what districts of Baghdad the partial results came from.

The other provinces were Dhi Qar, Qadisiyah, Najaf and Karbala, which like Muthanna are the Shiite heartland in southern Iraq.

Kurdish political leader Jalal Talabani said he would seek the office of either president or prime minister when the National Assembly convenes.

Jockeying has begun for leadership positions even before the balance of power in the assembly is known. The assembly must elect a president and two vice-presidents by a two-thirds majority, then it must approve the prime minister chosen by the three. Kurds voted in large numbers, and the ticket led by Talabani and Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani is expected to win a sizeable bloc of seats.

Because many Sunnis stayed away from the polls, influential Sunni clerics are challenging the legitimacy of the ballot, as well as the new government and the constitution that the National Assembly is to create.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]The UN security council, including the USA had knowledge of all the fishy deals. The USA in particular supported the abuse of the food for oil program. So what can the UN do if some of their members decide to run their own program on abusal ?

It will bring it to the security council. And guess what : It will not even make it onto the "to-do" list as the same guys who abused the program will wipe it of the list in no time.

There are many options that a country (i.e. like yours) can do if it is "wiped" off the "to-do" list. France and co. were vocal against the Iraq war but did not say a thing about this has a tool.

Quote[/b] ]So who´s the paper tiger ?

Last I checked, US and others were ones that went in to Iraq not the UN.

Anyway,

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....igation

Quote[/b] ]

Annan to Take Action Vs. Oil Plan Leader

2 minutes ago   Middle East - AP

By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) is taking disciplinary action against the head of the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq (news - web sites) following an investigation of alleged corruption in the humanitarian program, a senior U.N. official said Thursday.

The decision came after a report by former Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Paul Volcker accused program chief Benon Sevan of unethical conduct and Joseph Stephanides of manipulating an oil-for-food contract, according to Mark Malloch Brown, Annan's chief of staff.

At the time the contract was awarded, Stephanides was chief of the U.N. Sanctions Branch and deputy director of the Security Council Affairs Division in the U.N. Department of Political Affairs. He now heads the division. Malloch Brown did not say what disciplinary steps would be taken but said they would be announced early next week.

Although Sevan said he never recommended any oil companies, the investigation led by Volcker concluded that he repeatedly solicited allocations of oil from Iraq under the program and "created a grave and continuing conflict of interest."

Volcker also said there was "convincing and uncontested evidence" that the selection of the three U.N. contractors for the oil-for-food program — Banque Nationale de Paris, Saybolt Eastern Hemisphere BV and Lloyd's Register Inspection Limited — did not conform to established financial and competitive bidding rules.

Sevan denied any wrongdoing, the report said, but it added that evidence from Iraqi officials contradicted those denials. However, a summary of the report's findings did not accuse Sevan of any criminal actions.

Volcker's committee said it investigated allegations that Sevan, while executive director of the oil-for-food program, requested oil allocations from the Iraqi government on behalf of the African Middle East Petroleum Co. Ltd. Inc., a Swiss-based oil trading company known as AMEP.

The committee concluded that Sevan solicited and received several million barrels of allocations on behalf of AMEP in 1998-2001. Those allocations generated $1.5 million in revenues, the report said.

Those solicitations "presented a grave and continuing conflict of interest, were ethically improper, and seriously undermined the integrity of the United Nations (news - web sites)," the report said.

The report said Sevan "was not forthcoming to the committee when he denied approaching Iraqi officials and requesting oil allocations on behalf of AMEP."

In a separate investigation by U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer, allegations surfaced that Sevan may have personally profited by receiving vouchers to sell Iraqi oil. According to the Duelfer report — which got its information from the former Iraqi oil ministry — Sevan allegedly received vouchers for 7.3 million barrels of oil through various companies and representatives that he recommended to Iraqi ministries.

The financial take would have been in the range of $700,000 to $2 million, depending on oil prices.

The oil-for-food program, launched in December 1996 to help ordinary Iraqis cope with U.N. sanctions imposed after Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, quickly became a lifeline for 90 percent of the population.

Under the program, Saddam's regime could sell oil, provided the proceeds went primarily to buy humanitarian goods and pay reparations to victims of the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). Saddam's government decided on the goods it wanted, who should provide them and who could buy Iraqi oil. But the Security Council committee overseeing sanctions monitored the contracts.

The program ended in November 2003, after the U.S.-led war that toppled Saddam. Allegations of corruption first surfaced in late 2000, with accusations that the Iraqi leader was putting surcharges on oil sales and pocketing the money.

The report by Volcker's committee said the budgeting, accounting, auditing and administration of the program was relatively disciplined, although there were isolated violations.

However, it highlighted flaws in the auditing of the program, saying there was insufficient funding and staff, and poor planning. It stressed that important areas of the program were never reviewed, and it called for greater transparency and accountability.

The interim report did not address questions about Annan or the employment of his son, Kojo, by the Swiss company, Cotecna Inspection SA, which had a U.N. contract to certify deals under the oil-for-food program. It said that topic would be addressed in another report.

Volcker said he intended to issue a definitive report this summer on the entire management and oversight of the program, including the role of the U.N. Security Council, the U.N. Secretariat and the U.N. agencies that administered the program in Iraq.

Volcker said the investigation also will focus on some of the parties involved in selling Iraqi oil or purchasing goods under the program.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]So who´s the paper tiger ?

Last I checked, US and others were ones that went in to Iraq not the UN.

with false intel and destroy a nation.

so if some guy buys cracks from a bad guy, and those who are there to enforce it has no power due to the city council all secretly condone such drig deals, it's ok?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]  

The oil trade with countries such as Turkey and Jordan appears to have been an open secret inside the <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>U.S. government</span> and the United Nations for years.

Also,

Quote[/b] ]  

Former State Department diplomat Walker said, "It was almost a 'don't ask, don't tell' kind of policy. It was accepted in <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>the Security Council</span>. No one challenged it."  

Alot of countries knew about and did not lift a finger or expose it. So, paper tiger.

and it includes US.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Last I checked, US and others were ones that went in to Iraq not the UN.

And that somehow makes us better then the UN? That instead of engaging in constructive diplomacy with the rest of the world, we just throw our weight and power around and say "Screw you" to the rest of the world?

Sounds like a spoiled, child/bully to me.