Iraqi Parliment Bombed - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-12-2007, 08:05 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:37 AM
Quote:
A bloody message from Iraq: nowhere is safe...

The day a suicide bomber struck at the heart of Iraq's democracy
By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 13 April 2007


Nowhere is safe. Insurgents struck in the heart of the Green Zone yesterday, one of the most heavily defended places in Baghdad. The symbolism - and the bloody message - was clear with this attack on the home to the US-imposed democracy.

A suicide bomber cleared at least eight rings of security to blow himself up in the Iraqi parliament,
killing eight people including three lawmakers as they were eating lunch. It was the most deadly attack mounted from within the Green Zone.

In a separate attack, the Iraqi capital was cut in two as one of the main bridges over the Tigris was blown up earlier in the day.

The Green Zone bombing was not only an assault on democracy. It was intended to undermine President George Bush's troop "surge", which is denounced as a sham by so many Iraqis.

But even Iraqis hardened to violence were shocked by the bloody scene in parliament. "I saw a ball of fire and heard a huge, loud explosion," said one witness. "There were pieces of flesh floating in the air."

The bodyguard of a Sunni member of parliament is suspected of detonating a vest packed with explosives in the restaurant beside the chamber where parliament meets. The success of a suicide bomber in penetrating one of the most tightly guarded buildings in the world could only have happened if he had help from other security men. The Iraqi parliament is well inside the heavily fortified Green Zone and is protected by eight layers of security, including at least three checks for explosives.

President Bush condemned the attack saying: "It reminds us that there is an enemy willing to bomb innocent people in a symbol of democracy."

The bombing is likely to increase scepticism that the two-month old American campaign to get control of Baghdad, the "surge", is achieving very much.

__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-12-2007, 09:27 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Robert Fisk: Divide and rule - America's plan for Baghdad
Revealed: a new counter-insurgency strategy to carve up the city into sealed areas. The tactic failed in Vietnam. So what chance does it have in Iraq?
Published: 11 April 2007

Faced with an ever-more ruthless insurgency in Baghdad - despite President George Bush's "surge" in troops - US forces in the city are now planning a massive and highly controversial counter-insurgency operation that will seal off vast areas of the city, enclosing whole neighbourhoods with barricades and allowing only Iraqis with newly issued ID cards to enter.

The campaign of "gated communities" - whose genesis was in the Vietnam War - will involve up to 30 of the city's 89 official districts and will be the most ambitious counter-insurgency programme yet mounted by the US in Iraq.

The system has been used - and has spectacularly failed - in the past, and its inauguration in Iraq is as much a sign of American desperation at the country's continued descent into civil conflict as it is of US determination to "win" the war against an Iraqi insurgency that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops. The system of "gating" areas under foreign occupation failed during the French war against FLN insurgents in Algeria and again during the American war in Vietnam. Israel has employed similar practices during its occupation of Palestinian territory - again, with little success.

But the campaign has far wider military ambitions than the pacification of Baghdad. It now appears that the US military intends to place as many as five mechanised brigades - comprising about 40,000 men - south and east of Baghdad, at least three of them positioned between the capital and the Iranian border. This would present Iran with a powerful - and potentially aggressive - American military force close to its border in the event of a US or Israeli military strike against its nuclear facilities later this year.
...
The rest is here:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2439530.ece
__________________

__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 04-12-2007, 10:42 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


The rest is here:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2439530.ece
It should be noted that the counter insurgency effort in South Vietnam during the Vietnam war did eventually succeed and wiping out the insurgency in the South. By 1972, virtually all the fighting was being conducted by North Vietnamese troops, the insurgency in the south ceased to exist. So many people forget that South Vietnam was taken over several years after all United States forces had left, and was taken over through a military invasion along the lines of the German invasions of France and Poland, not through any sort of insurgency in the south or popular uprising.

Another city that the article fails to mention is Fallujah where the level of violence has significantly dropped since similar measures were taken there.

Israel has succeeded in creating a state with a first world standard of living in a sea of enemies. While its far from being terror proof, its certainly not a failure.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-12-2007, 10:45 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Re: Iraqi Parliment Bombed

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Irvine511
[B]can we say it all again: there is no democracy without security.

Security is very important, and the security situation will only get worse if those providing vital important security task every day in Iraq are suddenly withdrawn as Democrats would like to see.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-12-2007, 10:46 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:37 PM
Iraq is not Vietnam, not for or against is it Vietnam.

And partisan politics mean that there should never be a shooting war with human troops; bring on the robots.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-12-2007, 11:07 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
This war is a lost cause and the war will end within the next 2 years regardless of who is elected.

So you can decide to have more people die in the meantime or pull out. It's a reality that this war is over.
The reality is that the war is not going to end with the sudden withdrawal of coalition troops. Without the coalition forces who are providing vital security and rebuilding work, the situation on the ground will only get worse. There are huge consequences that are being ignored by those who favor an immediate withdrawal.

The United States might elect a President who will foolishly abandon Iraq at the end of 2008, but the war, the killing, the risk to US security, will not end. Al Quada will finally have the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan after 2001.

Al Quada greatest level of activity in 2007, is in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Even without Al Quada elements, restoring security and stability to Iraq is of greater importance than the same operation to restore security and stability to Afghanistan, which makes the Democrats insistence on leaving Iraq immediately but staying in place in Afghanistan even more bizarre.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 12:35 AM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Which came first...the chicken or the egg....

chicken or the egg
chicken or the egg

Which came first the chicken or the egg.....

or the chicken in the armchair playing QB?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 10:49 AM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Re: Re: Iraqi Parliment Bombed

[QUOTE]Originally posted by STING2
[B]
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
can we say it all again: there is no democracy without security.

Security is very important, and the security situation will only get worse if those providing vital important security task every day in Iraq are suddenly withdrawn as Democrats would like to see.


what "security"?

can we raise the bar any lower and reset our already woefully diminished expectations?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 10:51 AM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The reality is that the war is not going to end with the sudden withdrawal of coalition troops. Without the coalition forces who are providing vital security and rebuilding work, the situation on the ground will only get worse. There are huge consequences that are being ignored by those who favor an immediate withdrawal.


could i ask you, for once, to stop painting all those who consistently call you out on your pollyanna BS and who disagree with the administration on what needs to be done with the same brush? can you stop, just for a moment, and realize that everyone who thinks you're full of crap doesn't think that immediate withdrawal is the best course of action? can i ask you to pause, just for a second, and consider that people who disagree with you have nuanced positions and that your convenient use of the phrase "immediate withdrawal" is totally meaningless?

just for a second. just consider.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 01:45 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Re: Re: Re: Iraqi Parliment Bombed

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




what "security"?

can we raise the bar any lower and reset our already woefully diminished expectations?
US goals in Iraq remain essentially the same as they have been since the start of the invasion, to develop a non-hostile, stable democratic government in Iraq, that has the means to provide for its own security without the need for foreign troops. This is the same goal for Afghanistan as well.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 01:53 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi Parliment Bombed

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


US goals in Iraq remain essentially the same as they have been since the start of the invasion, to develop a non-hostile, stable democratic government in Iraq, that has the means to provide for its own security without the need for foreign troops. This is the same goal for Afghanistan as well.


and it's yet to be accomplished. you cannot have a "non-hostile" (what could that mean?) "stable" governemnt in a coutnrywith an insurgency with indefensible borders and a population that identifies on the basis of ancient sects and tribes. you have no definable enemy for the government to protect it's citizens from, since said "enemy" is part of the government itself, and the government holds no appeal to the local population. just how are American troops supposed to wage war and reconstruct/rebuild at the same time?

there is no government. it only exists as a legitimizing tool for the genocidal purposes of the Shia militias.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 02:00 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:37 PM
It's very easy to just declare that even though the polling would consistently disagree.

Just because Sting is overly optimistic and wrong doesn't make the opposite right.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 02:09 PM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
It's very easy to just declare that even though the polling would consistently disagree.

Just because Sting is overly optimistic and wrong doesn't make the opposite right.


ah, but i've not been arguing the exact opposite.

on the contrary, STING states that those who disagree with him are advocating the preicse opposite of his conclusions (stay stay stay, keep on keeping on).

and i'll amend my statement about the government:

"it functions most effectively as a legitimizing tool for the genocidal purposes of the Shia militias."

i think it's dead obvious that the current status quo will never result in an acceptable outcome. it's also dead obvious that the ranting against DEMOCRATS (!!!) as trying to subvert the Iraqi government and the soliders is self-serving paranoia not seen since the collapse of South Vietnam.

so what do we do?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 02:12 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:37 PM
Democrats are looking out for their electoral chances in 2008; delay full withdrawl until after the election and theres no blood on their presidents hands - put it all down to the GOP and their policies.

It means fuck all to any Iraqi who will have to deal with the concequences of any action or inaction long after America has shifted gear into malaise.

Nuclear Iran is the next problem and it can't be bombed away, I suspect that when that happens Iraq may suddenly become quite a lot more stable.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 02:12 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




could i ask you, for once, to stop painting all those who consistently call you out on your pollyanna BS and who disagree with the administration on what needs to be done with the same brush? can you stop, just for a moment, and realize that everyone who thinks you're full of crap doesn't think that immediate withdrawal is the best course of action? can i ask you to pause, just for a second, and consider that people who disagree with you have nuanced positions and that your convenient use of the phrase "immediate withdrawal" is totally meaningless?

just for a second. just consider.
The consequences of an immediate withrawal from Iraq are being ignored. Oh and the Democratic proposals in both the Senate and the House are immediate withdrawal bills because the time it would take to withdraw such forces from Iraq would indeed take 6 months to a year. The House bill calls for all US Combat troops to be out by September 2008, the Senate Bill March 2008. As for nuanced positions that are not essentially the same as what congress is calling for, I would love to hear them, but have yet to see them. There is also huge contradictions in the policy proposals of most Democrats on Afghanistan vs. Iraq.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com