Life just gets worse in Iraq

[Diemen]

Typical liberal wishful thinking. The so called Neocons are only one group that supported the removal of Saddam as well as the war in Afghanistan. Hell, even BONO supports the war in Afghanistan. Virtually the entire US government has supported the war in Afghanistan and the current occupation of Afghanistan is the most successful foreign occupation of that country in its 5,000 year history!

When has the war in Afghanistan ever been the issue us wishful thinking liberals are upset about? Show me all the quotes of liberals decrying military action in Afghanistan. Show me the quotes from those of us saying we don't want to do everything in our power to capture Bin Laden. Oh, except...

George W. Bush said:
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... to be honest with you... I truly am not that concerned about him.

Virtually the entire US population supported military action in Afghanistan. It's the Iraq War we don't support, and you of all people surely understand that.

 

[deep]

Stay the course or is this adapting to the enemy ??

 

[verte76]

When has the war in Afghanistan ever been the issue us wishful thinking liberals are upset about? Show me all the quotes of liberals decrying military action in Afghanistan. Show me the quotes from those of us saying we don't want to do everything in our power to capture Bin Laden. Oh, except...



Virtually the entire US population supported military action in Afghanistan. It's the Iraq War we don't support, and you of all people surely understand that.

Yes, I supported the action in Afghanistan because of the Taliban being so odious but I didn't support the war in Iraq. I opposed it from the beginning.

 

[financeguy]

Nation building and counter insurgency take time, usually 10 plus years, and Iraq is no more lost now than Northern Ireland was in the early 1970s, or Bosnia in the early 1990s.

Even at the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, which as you've correctly implied was during the early 1970's, the numbers killed per annum was only in the order of several hundred per annum or so (if memory serves correctly, around 600 at worst). While of course this was several hundred too many, it is a much lower death rate per capita than is currently being recorded in Iraq, if the statistics that are being quoted are accurate. Even at the height of the Troubles, there were plenty of areas in Northern Ireland, in particular middle class and wealthy areas, that were relatively untouched.

In most years of the Troubles, more people died in car crashes in Northern Ireland than died as a result of the Troubles! Not only that, but worldwide, including in the US, there are quite a few cities which experience higher death rates from murders caused by ordinary crime which have nothing to do with terrorism, than the numbers killed in Northern Ireland from terrorism/conflict in a typical year during the Troubles.

None of this is to deny that this was an extremely traumatic time in Northern Ireland's history, and comparisons with present day Iraq do have some validity, given the sectarian nature of the conflict involved in both places.

Overall, while there are some valid comparisons to be made between Northern Ireland in the early 1970's and present day Iraq, it is difficult for me to believe that Iraq is in no worse state now than Northern Ireland in the early 1970's.

 

[verte76]

There's a gruesome story on my ISP's news (it comes from AP) about six Sunni worshippers getting burned alive by al-Sadr's Shia militia. They also burned four Sunni mosques. What a nightmare.

 

[deep]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Enraged Shiites burned people to death, torched mosques and denounced Sunni leaders and the United States a day after a bloody assault on Sadr City, the Iraq capital's Shiite bastion.

That coordinated strike, which killed more than 200 and wounded more 250 Thursday, is considered the worst of the Iraq war, and Sunni militants are widely assumed to have carried it out.

Witnesses said Shiite gunmen on Friday attacked two mosques with rocket-propelled grenades and burned two other Sunni mosques in the largely Shiite area of Hurriya in northwestern Baghdad.

They reported people attacking Sunni houses with hand grenades and rocket-propelled grenades. Shiite militiamen are also said to have doused Sunnis with kerosene and burned them, and shooting at other people.

 

[deep]

(CNN) -- Anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's bloc is threatening to withdraw support from Iraq's government if next week's planned meeting in Jordan between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki takes place.

Al-Sadr has been critical of U.S. actions in Iraq, and his faction blames the United States for creating the conditions that led to a bloodbath Thursday that killed more than 200 people in Baghdad's Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City.

The cleric's movement holds significant power in the Iraqi government, and the threat of a walkout could jeopardize the stability of al-Maliki's administration, which has relied on the support of both the United States and fellow Shiites.

 

[STING2]

Even at the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, which as you've correctly implied was during the early 1970's, the numbers killed per annum was only in the order of several hundred per annum or so (if memory serves correctly, around 600 at worst). While of course this was several hundred too many, it is a much lower death rate per capita than is currently being recorded in Iraq, if the statistics that are being quoted are accurate. Even at the height of the Troubles, there were plenty of areas in Northern Ireland, in particular middle class and wealthy areas, that were relatively untouched.

In most years of the Troubles, more people died in car crashes in Northern Ireland than died as a result of the Troubles! Not only that, but worldwide, including in the US, there are quite a few cities which experience higher death rates from murders caused by ordinary crime which have nothing to do with terrorism, than the numbers killed in Northern Ireland from terrorism/conflict in a typical year during the Troubles.

None of this is to deny that this was an extremely traumatic time in Northern Ireland's history, and comparisons with present day Iraq do have some validity, given the sectarian nature of the conflict involved in both places.

Overall, while there are some valid comparisons to be made between Northern Ireland in the early 1970's and present day Iraq, it is difficult for me to believe that Iraq is in no worse state now than Northern Ireland in the early 1970's.

But we have to remember that Iraq is 20 times larger than Northern Ireland in terms of population. In addition, 90% of the sectarian violence happens in or within 30 miles of Baghdad. Other types of violence are heavily concentrated in the 5 Sunni dominated provinces while the other 13 provinces are relatively free of such violence.

Iraq is still worse of course even adjusting for these factors and Bosnia was worse than anything that has been seen in Iraq. But all three conflicts are roughly similar in terms of what is needed to bring about stability and the time it will take to do so.

 

[Irvine511]

^ and none of the above makes a shred of difference in a country wrapped up in civil war. both the level of violence and the savagery of the violence in Iraq are nowhere near comparison with Northern Ireland. the comparison is almost offensive, and the mantra that "it's only 5 of 18 provinces" offers only illusory comfort when you look at the population distribution of Iraq (the fact that 5m people live in Baghdad alone) and realize that a much higher percentage of the civilian population deals with insane violence on a day-to-day basis than such a poorly reasoned geographic analysis would have you believe.



[q]Death Toll For Iraqis Reaches New High
3,709 Civilians Killed In October, U.N. Says

By Nancy Trejos
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 23, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD, Nov. 22 -- The number of civilians killed in Iraq reached a record monthly high of 3,709 in October, mostly a result of sectarian violence, according to a U.N. report released Wednesday.

The report by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq described the many ways civilians have been killed, from roadside bombs to drive-by shootings to kidnappings. Many were found handcuffed, blindfolded and bearing signs of torture and execution-style killing. Most had gunshot wounds.

Culling from figures kept by Iraq's Health Ministry, private hospitals and Baghdad's morgue, the report described a rapidly deteriorating society that has forced an estimated 1.6 million people to flee to neighboring countries since the war began in 2003. No longer are terrorists and insurgents the main perpetrators of the killings. Death squads linked to militias, often in collusion with the Iraqi police, and criminal gangs are also responsible, the report said. Many slayings were simply acts of vengeance.

"There's a great deal of people taking the law into their own hands and not looking for justice within the system," Gianni Magazzeni, head of the U.N. human rights office in Baghdad, said in an interview.

Wednesday was no different: About 100 people were killed across the country. Among them was a bodyguard of Iraq's parliament speaker, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, who himself escaped an apparent assassination attempt the day before. Also killed was a journalist for the state-run al-Sabah newspaper, gunned down as he drove through the capital.
[/q]

 

[STING2]

^ and none of the above makes a shred of difference in a country wrapped up in civil war. both the level of violence and the savagery of the violence in Iraq are nowhere near comparison with Northern Ireland. the comparison is almost offensive, and the mantra that "it's only 5 of 18 provinces" offers only illusory comfort when you look at the population distribution of Iraq (the fact that 5m people live in Baghdad alone) and realize that a much higher percentage of the civilian population deals with insane violence on a day-to-day basis than such a poorly reasoned geographic analysis would have you believe.




[/q]

The conflict in Northern Ireland offers important lessons for combating and defeating insurgencies and getting various combative groups to stop fighting and negotiate. Its informed British military operations in Iraq and is being studied by the US military. It makes a huge difference to those trying to find a solution to the problem rather than simply attempting to imply that its the worst disaster ever and is unsolvable.

In terms of comparing casualties in Northern Ireland to those in Iraq, one has to remember that Iraq is nearly 20 times the size of Northern Ireland. In that sense, the loss of life from the August 1998 bombing in Northern Ireland killing 28 people was far worse than the latest bombing in Iraq said to be the worst ever when one accounts for the population levels of the the two countries. Even if you accept the current casualty level for civilians in Iraq as accurate for the month, you have to realize a Northern Ireland figure of 150 would be equal to it once you adjust for the size of the populations. I don't think Northern Ireland suffered a monthly toll that high, and its probably never suffered a monthly toll above 100, but just because it does not precisely match the casualty level in Iraq does not mean the Northern Ireland conflict does not have important lessons for Iraq.

While there are various reports about the level of civilian casualties in Iraq, there is rarely any actual names, and bodies of victims that have been recorded and matched up with all such totals. Bodycount.org claims over 50,000 Iraqi civilians have died, but can only account for 4,000 of them. In contrast, ever person that died in the Northern Ireland conflict has been accurately recorded. You have 100% accurate civilian casualty figures for the conflict in Northern Ireland, but widely different claims about the level of civilian casualties in Iraq.

Despite those that want to ignore it, most of Iraq's population does NOT reside in the 5 Sunni Dominated provinces where most of the insurgent violence occurs. The area in which 90% of the sectarian violence happens is even smaller, within 30 miles of Baghdad. Yes, there are 5 million people in Baghdad's metro area, but Iraq is a nation of over 27 million people. Most people who live in Iraq do not actually see the violence and the strife that makes the evening news on a daily basis.

 

[BonosSaint]

You know you have to perversely admire Sting's persistence.

 

[anitram]

You know you have to perversely admire Sting's persistence.

Maybe if hundreds of people weren't dying on a weekly basis, one could do that.

As it stands, it's just perverse.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The violence does exist and threatens the maintainence of Iraq; it benefits Iran, Syria and their proxies in the country - with the shift towards stability involving accomidation to those regimes in the American political scene they will have won - I would not be surprised in the least if in the next 5 years a nuclear Iran is the cost of a face saving withdrawl from a stablised Iraq with a benign dictator; which raises the question of gain, since the prospect of any Arab spring drops drastically, a rogue state will have nuclear weapons with Saudi Arabia and Egypt working to catch up - what may be done to avoid such a scenario?

 

[AEON]

what may be done to avoid such a scenario?

That's the question of the day isn't it?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I thought it was blaming the coalition for the actions of Iranian proxies and Bin Ladenist terrrorists

 

[sue4u2]

Most people who live in Iraq do not actually see the violence and the strife that makes the evening news on a daily basis.

and I bet you are wrong. You can spin it all you want, but I can't help but believe they see more than You even want to admit.

 

[Zoomerang96]

Maybe if hundreds of people weren't dying on a weekly basis, one could do that.

As it stands, it's just perverse.

really, i'm not entirely convinced sting2 isn't an alter by now.

 

[AliEnvy]

You know you have to perversely admire Sting's persistence.

I'm pretty sure he gets well paid for that persistence...that's the part I perversely admire. As far as I know, there's only one other person who gets paid for their involvement/participation on this site.

 

[deep]

 

[verte76]

Iran is not an Arabic country; it is Persian. Persians are Persians.

 

[deep in HELL]

yeah ! ! !

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'm pretty sure he gets well paid for that persistence...that's the part I perversely admire.

I'm not sure I should even ask, but wha? *sound of can of worms opening* hehe

Anyway, NBC News is now going to classify it as a civil war- will everyone else but Fox follow?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/27/nbc-news-situation-in-ir_n_34980.html

Today Show anchor Matt Lauer opened this morning with the news that NBC has now decided to classify the situation in Iraq as a civil war.

"For months now the White House has rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into civil war. And for the most part, news organizations like NBC have hesitated to characterize it as such. But after careful consideration, NBC news has decided to change in terminology as warranted that the situation in Iraq, with armed, militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas, can now be characterized as civil war"

 

[Irvine511]

Colin Powell has been calling it a civil war for months.

but this is all liberal media lies. they're just a bunch of unpatriotic Bush haters.

 

[AliEnvy]

I'm not sure I should even ask, but wha? *sound of can of worms opening* hehe

lol - jus sayin it must be part of his day job - wouldn't it be nice if posting on interference was part of your job rather than hoping the IT police where you work don't catch up

 

[Judah]

So, can't a change of Iraq status into a "civil war" actually help Bush with an exit strategy? "Hey, despite all our billions of investment, and helping the Iraq gov't come up with a constitution, the Iraqi people just want to fight. We're outta here. We're not coming back until they stop fighting and invite us back."

[Of course, a few thousand soldiers and private security personnel will be left behind to guard the oil fields and western oil companies' interests.]

 

[verte76]

So, can't a change of Iraq status into a "civil war" actually help Bush with an exit strategy? "Hey, despite all our billions of investment, and helping the Iraq gov't come up with a constitution, the Iraqi people just want to fight. We're outta here. We're not coming back until they stop fighting and invite us back."

[Of course, a few thousand soldiers and private security personnel will be left behind to guard the oil fields and western oil companies' interests.]

Interesting thought...............

 

[deep]

US F-16 goes down in Iraq



A US F-16 fighter aircraft has gone down near the city of Fallujah in western Iraq.

The US airforce said the plane's pilot was missing and an investigation into the cause of the incident had been launched.

However, and Iraqi journalist said local residents had reported seeing the F-16 being shot down.

Muthana Shakir, an Iraqi journalist in Baghdad told Al Jazeera: "We got credible news saying at 2pm on Monday a US F-16 warplane was downed in al-Garma neighbourhood near the western Iraqi city of Falluja."

"The warplane was downed over arable lands. Witnesses confirmed that the plane was fired on by gunmen's rockets when it was flying on low altitude."

William Caldwell, a US military spokesman, said he would be surprised if the jet was shot down as the F-16's fly very fast and have not encountered any weapons capable of taking them down in Iraq.
A spokesman said that the aircraft was lost while it was flying in support of ground operations taking place in Fallujah.

 

[Zoomerang96]

i'm still waiting for sting2 to say at some point

"well noone TOLD us this wasn't gonna work out! where were all the naysayers back in 2002/2003???"

thus the spin will have indeed reached a full circle.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Back in 2004 Bush was pronouncing "Al-Sadr must answer the charges against him and disband his illegal militia" and today it is the very inability to do so that is stepping the country to chaos. A 2006 with Iran going nuclear and Saddam Hussein next door would be a very bad scenario.

Abdicating responsibility over Iraq and stepping back for a genuine civil war (ethnic clensing and mass graves scale) iis not viable. The short term interest of stability may demand a junta or benign dictator - but that is a very slippery and dangerous slope (albeit one that this administration has proven willing and able to do in a lot of other instances). Iraq is not a closed system, the failure to engage progressives in the region and deal with Syria and Irans support of terrorists has had concequences in reconstruction and stability within Iraq - I don't see how the quid pro quo with those states that will be done makes Iraq anything more than an insane waste of lives, materials and will.

 

[Irvine511]

A 2006 with Iran going nuclear and Saddam Hussein next door would be a very bad scenario.

might a Saddam Hussein next door been a deterrant for Iran to have been as aggressive in its nuclear ambitions?