NationStates Jolt Archive

This is from the London Financial Times from March 26, 2005!



London Financial Times
March 26, 2005

Iraq's Insurgents 'Seek Exit Strategy'

By Steve Negus, in Baghdad

Many of Iraq's predominantly Sunni Arab insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process in exchange for guarantees of their safety and that of their co-religionists, according to a prominent Sunni politician.

Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.

“Firstly, they want to ensure their own security,” says Sharif Ali, who last week hosted a pan-Sunni conference attended by tribal sheikhs and other local leaders speaking on behalf of the insurgents.

Insurgent leaders fear coming out into the open to talk for fear of being targeted by US military or Iraqi security forces' raids, he said.

Sharif Ali distinguishes many Sunni insurgents, whom he says took up arms in reaction to the invasive raids in search of Ba'athist leaders and other “humiliations” soon after the 2003 war, from the radical jihadist branch associated with Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Unlike Mr Zarqawi's followers, who are thought to be responsible for the big suicide bomb attacks on Iraqi civilian targets, the other Sunni insurgents are more likely to plant bombs and carry out ambushes against security forces and US troops active near their homes.

Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.

Looks like the Iraqis, most notably the Sunnis, do want peace after all!

The Sunnis have come to realize that boycotting the elections and putting their faith in suicidal psychos was a bad move. Despite the harm done by their irresponsible decision the Shia should cut them some slack in an effort to unify the nation.

The Sunnis have come to realize that boycotting the elections and putting their faith in suicidal psychos was a bad move. Despite the harm done by their irresponsible decision the Shia should cut them some slack in an effort to unify the nation.

That, and every time the insurgents go toe to toe with US soldiers, they get their corpses handed to them. The insurgents as a military force and a political force are essentially defeated - they can only set off random bombs and harm their own people. They can't kidnap a US soldier, can't engage US soldiers without being wiped out, and can't hide anymore because their neighbors are turning them in.

Not to mention that this will also hang the Zarqawi boys out to dry. I hope the sunnis agree to terms when offer so that now we can focus our energies on getting Zarqawi and kicking his influence out of Iraq.

Where are all the people who were saying that the US was "losing" the war in Iraq?

Read it and weep!

Where are all the people who were saying that the US was "losing" the war in Iraq?

Read it and weep!

Give them time WL! They are probably trying to find sites to refute it.

They're probably freaking out, saying, "no, it can't be possible... the insurgents are winning... if the insurgents give up then the US wins the war in Iraq..."


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

You dont really win this war, you just stay and keep the peace for a looong time.

I dont doubt that its getting tiring for the average thug to keep fighting the US, however you are going to see crazies in that country for years and years taking pot shots at whoever is in control. Whether the country implodes after the usa leaves remains to be seen....

thank you for bringing some sanity to liberal land (Massachusetts)

Oh, but we all thought that insurgency couldn't be defeated!

That Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorists!

:rolleyes:

Crazies will always flock to that country, just remains to be seen if the average person in iraq will support them or the usa. Seems to be leaning towards the usa, which is good.

I think they're leaning towards supporting the "new Iraq", which is better.

They don't want foreigners coming in and doing to their country what the Taliban did to Afghanistan.

Wanna bet Zarqaui and his boys just cross the border into Syria or Saudi to rest, regroup and recruit more zealots? They'll be back. Iraq just needs to be made strong enough to fight them off on their own.

Looks like the Iraqis, most notably the Sunnis, do want peace after all!

What!

That just can't be! All this was supposed to make them more willing to fight us and make future generations of "Terrorists", wasn't it?!?!

I wonder what the Liberals will find to complain about now?

Regards,
Gaar

That, and every time the insurgents go toe to toe with US soldiers, they get their corpses handed to them. The insurgents as a military force and a political force are essentially defeated - they can only set off random bombs and harm their own people. They can't kidnap a US soldier, can't engage US soldiers without being wiped out, and can't hide anymore because their neighbors are turning them in.


You forgot about the action figure they kidnapped. Hasbro is still trying to negotiate its release. (I wonder what that actual toy would fetch on Ebay?)

Wanna bet Zarqaui and his boys just cross the border into Syria or Saudi to rest, regroup and recruit more zealots? They'll be back. Iraq just needs to be made strong enough to fight them off on their own.

I have the feeling they'll go to Syria. Then the US will follow.

They might run out of places to run to.

They want to secure their saftey? Someone MUST answer for all those lost American and innocent Iraqi lives that would have otherwise not been lost had the insurgents pulled their collective head of their ass. You just can't kill people who are working for peace and then raise a white flag and get a free ticket out of jail. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

These ignorant insurgents should have known better than to try to match American (or any super power's) troops in combat. Bash America all you want, but our troops are highly trained and comprise one of the, if not, the best military force in the world. The insurgents should have taken a look at our scorecard...

Crazies will always flock to that country, just remains to be seen if the average person in iraq will support them or the usa. Seems to be leaning towards the usa, which is good.


I think a lot of Iraqis might be starting to realize that the safer it gets there, the more jobs there will be-they can actaully now dream that they will be able to worship as they chose and make a living to feed their children, get an education and learn what is really going on in the real world. Instead of scrabbling in the dust for the rest of time.

Notice that no one who believes that the US is "losing" the war has touched this thread yet.

I think a lot of Iraqis might be starting to realize that the safer it gets there, the more jobs there will be-they can actaully now dream that they will be able to worship as they chose and make a living to feed their children, get an education and learn what is really going on in the real world. Instead of scrabbling in the dust for the rest of time.

How can you say that?! We are the bullies who are oppressing women's rights and destroying the delicate fabric of a once peaceful nation? Building schools is the devil's work and bringing in millions of dollars of food, clean water, and medical supplies shows our true evil to the core! O I'm sure someone will post something about how 5 or 6 American or British troops abused prisoners or something, but that of course would clearly show that the whole operation in Iraq is just for oil and nothing else. Bush actually do something humanitarian? But but...the newspapers and my Al Fraken books tell me otherwise!

Thank God for England. At least someone has balls to actually not listen to prattle about appeasment in the UN and actually take action to do something good for other human beings. You know they tried appeasment with some other dictator awhile back and it didn't work at all either. His name was Adolf Hitler.

You were saying, WL?

However, I never believed they were losing or winning.

I always believed that it wa an uneccessary war.

And it's not that the Americans are winning, it's that Iraqi security forces are getting more teeth now, which means they can fight back.

You were saying, WL?

However, I never believed they were losing or winning.

I always believed that it wa an uneccessary war.

And it's not that the Americans are winning, it's that Iraqi security forces are getting more teeth now, which means they can fight back.

There are plenty of people here who think the US is "losing" to the insurgents.

If the new Iraq can win, and its people are turning in the foreigners who are organizing the resistance, then that's a good thing. And then we can leave, and say we won.

There are plenty of people here who wish that the US would leave now, and that the new Iraqi government would fail, and that their vision of the world, overrun with insurgents and terrorists would come to pass, so they could say, "see, I told you so!"

Too bad, eh?

Notice that no one who believes that the US is "losing" the war has touched this thread yet.

Isnt that the way it normally goes. Notice after the nov 2nd electiond and the Iraqi elections how people(many very vocal) started dropping. Either publicly or quietly.

There are plenty of people here who think the US is "losing" to the insurgents.

If the new Iraq can win, and its people are turning in the foreigners who are organizing the resistance, then that's a good thing. And then we can leave, and say we won.

There are plenty of people here who wish that the US would leave now, and that the new Iraqi government would fail, and that their vision of the world, overrun with insurgents and terrorists would come to pass, so they could say, "see, I told you so!"

Too bad, eh?

I personally don't like saying "we won," but that's just semantics. How can you win something that those people have always been entitled to but denied? I would be happy just saying "You're welcome," and leaving.

Regardless of whether the insurgents win or not, it does not and will never negate the fact that the use of violence against the nation and people of Iraq was wrong. To use violence when there are other options, and there are always other options, is obscene.

If the insurgents are defeated, then a battle has been lost, but not the war. There will always be someone to stand against imperialism and militarism. If the insurgents lay down thier arms, and instead participate in the political process, if they can help establish a free Iraq that is not a US oil puppet, they will have truly won.

Notice that no one who believes that the US is "losing" the war has touched this thread yet.

They're busy...

They need to find the next thing they are supposed to complain about.

Regards,
Gaar

They're busy...

They need to find the next thing they are supposed to complain about.

Regards,
Gaar

Not busy at all. Right here in fact. And there is plenty to complain about. Until utopia is established, there will ALWAYS be people/ideas/institutions I have a duty to complain about.

Regardless of whether the insurgents win or not, it does not and will never negate the fact that the use of violence against the nation and people of Iraq was wrong. To use violence when there are other options, and there are always other options, is obscene.

If the insurgents are defeated, then a battle has been lost, but not the war. There will always be someone to stand against imperialism and militarism. If the insurgents lay down thier arms, and instead participate in the political process, if they can help establish a free Iraq that is not a US oil puppet, they will have truly won.


Ok, come the time when Iraq is free, stable, and recovering. I want you to go over there, grab the attention of as many people as possible, and then tell them that they should still be suffering and that the fact that they are not is obscene.

No?

That's what I thought. :rolleyes:

You dont really win this war, you just stay and keep the peace for a looong time.

I dont doubt that its getting tiring for the average thug to keep fighting the US, however you are going to see crazies in that country for years and years taking pot shots at whoever is in control. Whether the country implodes after the usa leaves remains to be seen....

We have crazies taking pot shots at people in charge in this country so what's so different :D

thank you for bringing some sanity to liberal land (Massachusetts)

Actually, you need to credit my father for bringing this to my attention. He sent me the story.

How can you say that?! We are the bullies who are oppressing women's rights and destroying the delicate fabric of a once peaceful nation? Building schools is the devil's work and bringing in millions of dollars of food, clean water, and medical supplies shows our true evil to the core! O I'm sure someone will post something about how 5 or 6 American or British troops abused prisoners or something, but that of course would clearly show that the whole operation in Iraq is just for oil and nothing else. Bush actually do something humanitarian? But but...the newspapers and my Al Fraken books tell me otherwise!

Thank God for England. At least someone has balls to actually not listen to prattle about appeasment in the UN and actually take action to do something good for other human beings. You know they tried appeasment with some other dictator awhile back and it didn't work at all either. His name was Adolf Hitler.


I love the whole oil angle-we are in this just for the oil-I know-I'm rolling in oil right now. They'd have you believe we are duping the iraqi people and taking their oil. I'm paying $2.00 a gallon for gas right now.

I hate to burst your bubbles but this was the logical next step for terroists in such a condition: political legitimacy.

I've brought this up before. That Iraq now is like Japan in the 1860's. America and the Brits orchestrated the Civil War that got rid of the repressive Japanese feudal lord system and a bunch of other crap like samurai. After wards the Meiji Restoration occured where basically everything was adopted from western society (government, police, military, industry, education).

Also, terrorists, assassinations and government corruption were common as depicted in animes like Rurouni Kenshin (aka Samurai X) and Peace Maker Kurogane that both occur in this period of Japanese history.

Eventually the terrorists entered the political arena, managed to massage nationalism in all the right places, built up the military and went into war mode after the Emperor died by invading Manchuria and eventually bombing Pearl Harbour.

We still have lots of worrying ahead of us so don't relax too much.

Notice that no one who believes that the US is "losing" the war has touched this thread yet.

I've noticed but I'm still giving them time to try and refute this! Besides, its from the London Financial and not an American News Agency. That could also be a reason they haven't touched it.!

Not busy at all. Right here in fact. And there is plenty to complain about. Until utopia is established, there will ALWAYS be people/ideas/institutions I have a duty to complain about.

And what about the "duty" to answer for how wrong you have been about the War?

Where are all the "new recruits"... Things were supposed to be getting worse and worse by the day, not better!

Care to address any of that, or have we "moved on" to the next "bitching" point already?

Regards,
Gaar

Isnt that the way it normally goes. Notice after the nov 2nd electiond and the Iraqi elections how people(many very vocal) started dropping. Either publicly or quietly.

You forgot the elections in Afghanistan too.

Notice that no one who believes that the US is "losing" the war has touched this thread yet.

When our role there is through, they will start chanting on how long it took. And when the whole country is modernized and prosperous, they will say that American corporations were behind the whole war. Even if thats true, it wont matter to a 5 year old Iraqi child who eats fresh food and drinks clean water and has access to doctors and schools. And whose mother wasnt arrested for the purposes of being raped by uday or husay hussein. And whose father wasnt tortured and killed to fill a quota of loyalty purges.

Ok, come the time when Iraq is free, stable, and recovering. I want you to go over there, grab the attention of as many people as possible, and then tell them that they should still be suffering and that the fact that they are not is obscene.

No?

That's what I thought. :rolleyes:

And that's not what is said. Starting a war was obscene. Foreign nations killing large numbers of people to install that particular nation's ideology in another nation is obscene. There is nothing wrong with recovery, stability or freedom. I'd gladly go to Iraq and express my belief that the war was wrong.

Before the war Iraq had a thriving economy (for the Mideast), functional utilities IE power, water, etc, an education system, and a stable government able to keep the people from killing each other. You cannot go into a nation, destroy what it had, rebuild it, and claim to be a humanitarian. It just doen't work like that.

And what about the "duty" to answer for how wrong you have been about the War?

Where are all the "new recruits"... Things were supposed to be getting worse and worse by the day, not better!

Care to address any of that, or have we "moved on" to the next "bitching" point already?

Regards,
Gaar

No, I'll address that. Love the use of quotes by the way. Really gets the anger accross.
I have and will always claim the Iraq war was wrong. And I still believe that the US is failing in the sense that "Mission Accomplished" happened 2 years ago, and we still have people being brutally killed both by rebels and US regulars. I'm not naive enough to say that people using Cold War tech will crush a force of 21st century regular soldiers from the largest economy in the world, but there is a significant monkey wrench in the US plans, that has yet to be rectified. Just because there was this one non-front page article about how the Insurgents may be willing to lay down their arms doesn't negate the fact that today a suicide bomber just struck a Shia place of worship, killing from 2 to 9 people.

You forgot the elections in Afghanistan too.

Didnt forget. Though it was equally as significant, I dont think invading Afganistan bothered some people as much(of course they thought we would get our butts handed to us because if the Soviets couldnt do it then their is no way the USA could right)

They never could understand the difference between occupy and liberate(unless a communist is leading the movement..cause then its always liberate.)

No, I'll address that. Love the use of quote by the way. Really gets the anger accross.
I have and will always claim the Iraq war was wrong. And I still believe that the US is failing in the sense that "Mission Accomplished" happened 2 years ago, and we still have people being brutally killed both by rebels and US regulars. I'm not naive enough to say that people using Cold War tech will crush a force of 21st century regular soldiers from the largest economy in the world, but there is a significant monkey wrench in the US plans, that has yet to be rectified. Just because there was this one non-front page article about how the Insurgents may be willing to lay down their arms doesn't negate the fact that today a suicide bomber just struck a Shia place of worship, killing 2.

The mission accomplished banner was for THE REMOVAL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN That was the mission when we first went in there and that was accomplished. Therefore, The mission was accomplished. Now we have moved on to a secondary phase and that is to rebuild Iraq. As for people getting killed. The only citizens getting killed are those done by the Zarqawi people. The Sunni group is taking on the police and American Convoys. The only people getting killed are the terrorists right now and more of them have died over the last week than civilians. As for the front page crack, take a look at who wrote it! It was L-O-N-D-O-N! I haven't seen this at all in the US Press! Why? Because its good news for President Bush!

The mission accomplished banner was for THE REMOVAL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN That was the mission when we first went in there and that was accomplished. Therefore, The mission was accomplished. Now we have moved on to a secondary phase and that is to rebuild Iraq. As for people getting killed. The only citizens getting killed are those done by the Zarqawi people. The Sunni group is taking on the police and American Convoys. The only people getting killed are the terrorists right now and more of them have died over the last week than civilians. As for the front page crack, take a look at who wrote it! It was L-O-N-D-O-N! I haven't seen this at all in the US Press! Why? Because its good news for President Bush!

NICE SIZE CHOICE!

I saw that banner. It said "Mission Accomplished." There were no subtitles saying *Banner is for Saddam's removal only. Banner not valid should shit go down AFTER saddam's defeat. Banner not valid in Alaska, Hawaii or Canada.* I heard the rhetoric. It said that after the invasion, mop-up would be easy, much easier than the invasion. Well, that was not true. Mission not accoplished.

As for front page, i get some news from the News and Observer of North Carolina, but most from BBC online news. Thats BBC, based in L-O-N-D-O-N. This is not on their front page either.

NICE SIZE CHOICE!

I saw that banner. It said "Mission Accomplished." There were no subtitles saying *Banner is for Saddam's removal only. Banner not valid should shit go down AFTER saddam's defeat.* I heard the rhetoric. It said that after the invasion, mop-up would be easy, much easier than the invasion. Well, that was not true. Mission not accoplished.

As for front page, i get some news from the News and Observer of North Carolina, but most from BBC online news. Thats BBC, based in L-O-N-D-O-N. This is not on their front page either.

Probably because it'll paint Blair in a good light. Amazing how things turn out isn't is? I do know what that banner ment and if you have bothered to listen to the President during his speech he stated that tough times are ahead but we must perservere through them. Amazing what you can remember after 2 years isn't it? Do you want me to try to find his mission accomplish speech for ya so you can hear it for yourself? And I never heard one person say that the mop-up was going to be easy. NOT A ONE! Care to point to something I missed?

And that's not what is said. Starting a war was obscene. Foreign nations killing large numbers of people to install that particular nation's ideology in another nation is obscene. There is nothing wrong with recovery, stability or freedom. I'd gladly go to Iraq and express my belief that the war was wrong.

Before the war Iraq had a thriving economy (for the Mideast), functional utilities IE power, water, etc, an education system, and a stable government able to keep the people from killing each other. You cannot go into a nation, destroy what it had, rebuild it, and claim to be a humanitarian. It just doen't work like that.

Iraq had "thriving" income from oil, but its proceeds were enjoyed by very few-sadaam, his sons and their toadies.And former soviet scientists who knew a little something about germ/nuclear weapons. And I thought they were crying that our embargos were crippling them and the children couldnt get food and medicine? I guess you can have it both ways, right?
The government was stable-sure. People were regularly executed by gunshots to the head-the lucky ones. The not so lucky ones had a little torture first. Officers in the military were routinely "purged" because the may have not been loyal. With everyone walking on eggshells, waiting for their door to get kicked down in the middle of the night, we had a "stable government, able to keep the people from killing each other". There are freaking boneyards on the outskirts of baghdad full of those kept in order by this stable government.

Didnt forget. Though it was equally as significant, I dont think invading Afganistan bothered some people as much(of course they thought we would get our butts handed to us because if the Soviets couldnt do it then their is no way the USA could right)

They never could understand the difference between occupy and liberate(unless a communist is leading the movement..cause then its always liberate.)

Nope but they do now! Amazing how a few soldiers and light armor coupled with the locals can do isn't it?

Just because there was this one non-front page article about how the Insurgents may be willing to lay down their arms doesn't negate the fact that today a suicide bomber just struck a Shia place of worship, killing from 2 to 9 people.

And do you believe that there is going to be a time when all violence in Iraq just ceases to exist?

Do you think we don't have violent people here committing as horrible acts as you cite in Iraq on a regular basis ourselves?

So, perhaps you can explain how it is we have yet to curb the violence in our own Society, yet you are so quick to point fingers at violence in another country and somehow place the blame squarely on our Soldiers instead of where it belongs, the insurgents?

Regards,
Gaar

There was an attack on a police station true that killed 4 officers as well as the Police Chief. Won't deny that it happened. However in the same article, 90 terrorists were rounded up and captured. Would you like the link?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/28/iraq.main/index.html

About a hundred terrorists captured today to the death of 8 people. Not bad considering the dead police officers died by carbomb/motorcycle bomb.

This doesn't dispute my opening post! I just said that this occured! It'll occur and anyone thinks differently is an idiot however, the terrorists are getting their heads handed to them and they are losing badly.

Probably because it'll paint Blair in a good light. Amazing how things turn out isn't is? I do know what that banner ment and if you have bothered to listen to the President during his speech he stated that tough times are ahead but we must perservere through them. Amazing what you can remember after 2 years isn't it? Do you want me to try to find his mission accomplish speech for ya so you can hear it for yourself? And I never heard one person say that the mop-up was going to be easy. NOT A ONE! Care to point to something I missed?

So there's a giant conspiracy to paint Bush and Blair in poor lights? MY DREAM REALIZED! But I don't think so, I mean that kind of media conspiracy just to silence a little article that MIGHT help GW and Blair, seems unlikely.

here are some quotes for my previous statements -

"If you're looking for a historical analogy, it's probably closer to post-liberation France [after World War II]." Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
(remember France had little to no occupation needed after the liberation.)

"After (Gen. Jay Garner) finishes his job of restoring basic services, the interim Iraqi authority will be established. And that interim authority will be an authority of Iraqis, chosen by Iraqis. And it will be able to function as an authority in the country immediately after Gen. Garner's job is finished, which should be only a few weeks." Ahmed Chalabi, Chairman of the Iraqi National Congress

"I think you'll begin to see the governmental process start next week, by the end of next week. It will have Iraqi faces on it. It will be governed by the Iraqis." Gen. Jay Garner
Press Conference in Baghdad
4/24/2003

"By the middle of (this) month, you'll really see a beginning of a nucleus of an Iraqi government with an Iraqi face on it that is dealing with the coalition." Gen. Jay Garner
Press Conference
5/5/2003

"Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq" George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that."
Donald Rumsfeld

Under the Banner "Mission Accomplished": "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
–George W. Bush, May 1, 2003

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that. It won't be a World War III."
–Donald Rumsfeld, Infinity Radio call in show, Nov. 15, 2002

My statement that you called into question was an extrapolation based on the tone of messages we recieved regarding the Iraq war, it's length, how difficult it would be, etc. I doubt anyone used my exact words, but there, thats my logic, and some evidence I could dredge up.

And do you believe that there is going to be a time when all violence in Iraq just ceases to exist?

Do you think we don't have violent people here committing as horrible acts as you cite in Iraq on a regular basis ourselves?

So, perhaps you can explain how it is we have yet to curb the violence in our own Society, yet you are so quick to point fingers at violence in another country and somehow place the blame squarely on our Soldiers instead of where it belongs, the insurgents?

Regards,
Gaar

Well, because I know for a fact that those insurgents would not have attacked and killed US soldiers and more often Iraqi US sympathizers if there had not been a US invasion, because there wouldn't have been any US soldiers or supporters in Iraq. As to our own society, I have theories, but if you are interested in that, take up human sociology, and see "Bowling for Columbine" by Mr. Moore, he explores the topic.

Oh, and blame lays on both the inciters of the incidents, the invaders, and the perpetrators, the insurgents. I don't support anyone committing violence and murder, whether rebel or US.

Before the war Iraq had a thriving economy (for the Mideast), functional utilities IE power, water, etc, an education system, and a stable government able to keep the people from killing each other. You cannot go into a nation, destroy what it had, rebuild it, and claim to be a humanitarian. It just doen't work like that.

Iraq's economy has increased

I dont know about water but Iraqs power output has increased. The difference being that now 1) more than just Bagdad and Saddam's favorite towns have access to this power and 2) People are buying more goods that consume power such as satellite dishes.

Whats different about Iraq's education system now as before the war? If anything it should have improved.

The "stable" government you speak of kept it's citizens from killing each other by killing it's citizens before they had the chance.

Actually, it works exactly like that. Not always, but often.

So there's a giant conspiracy to paint Bush and Blair in poor lights? MY DREAM REALIZED! But I don't think so, I mean that kind of media conspiracy just to silence a little article that MIGHT help GW and Blair, seems unlikely.

Whatever but it seems that anytime something good happens for Bush or Blair, it isn't on the front page or mentioned at all.

here are some quotes for my previous statements -

Ok!

"If you're looking for a historical analogy, it's probably closer to post-liberation France [after World War II]." Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
(remember France had little to no occupation needed after the liberation.)

So he doesn't know his history! Big Deal. People make mistakes all the time. How does this prove your case?

"After (Gen. Jay Garner) finishes his job of restoring basic services, the interim Iraqi authority will be established. And that interim authority will be an authority of Iraqis, chosen by Iraqis. And it will be able to function as an authority in the country immediately after Gen. Garner's job is finished, which should be only a few weeks." Ahmed Chalabi, Chairman of the Iraqi National Congress

I don't trust Chalabi anyway. However, the Interim Government did take over and is functioning for the people of Iraq. How does this prove your point?

"I think you'll begin to see the governmental process start next week, by the end of next week. It will have Iraqi faces on it. It will be governed by the Iraqis." Gen. Jay Garner
Press Conference in Baghdad
4/24/2003

The Iraqis are governing themselves! This quote however is from 2003 and April no less. Before the Insurgency became stronger than anticipated thus pushing things back. However, the Interim Government did take over as I stated previously just took abit longer than we first thought. Now they are forming a Constitution. What does this prove?

"By the middle of (this) month, you'll really see a beginning of a nucleus of an Iraqi government with an Iraqi face on it that is dealing with the coalition." Gen. Jay Garner
Press Conference
5/5/2003

Garner doesn't have a clue. Again I go back to what I said earlier. Took longer than expected but they are governing themselves! Care to prove me wrong?

"Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq" George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

Oh this is fun. A 2002 quote! How interesting. I guess someone here forgets that people are *gasp* human?

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that."
Donald Rumsfeld

He was right. Lasted 1 month!

Under the Banner "Mission Accomplished": "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
–George W. Bush, May 1, 2003

Correct. Show me where it didn't! Oh wait, you can't!

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that. It won't be a World War III."
–Donald Rumsfeld, Infinity Radio call in show, Nov. 15, 2002

You repeated yourself! The war lasted 1 month. Actualy less than that but it was close to a month. I think your screwing up your definitions.

My statement that you called into question was an extrapolation based on the tone of messages we recieved regarding the Iraq war, it's length, how difficult it would be, etc. I doubt anyone used my exact words, but there, thats my logic, and some evidence I could dredge up.

The war lasted one month! The Iraqi Government is in power currently. They are devising a new constitution. So how does this prove what your trying to prove?

Well, because I know for a fact that those insurgents would not have attacked and killed US soldiers and more often Iraqi US sympathizers if there had not been a US invasion, because there wouldn't have been any US soldiers or supporters in Iraq. As to our own society, I have theories, but if you are interested in that, take up human sociology, and see "Bowling for Columbine" by Mr. Moore, he explores the topic.

You trust Moore? Oh brother! Forget it guys! He's a european. If they aren't killing us in Iraq, they'd be killing us somewhere else. Probably on our home soil. Take the fight to the Enemy. Standard War practice.

Oh, and blame lays on both the inciters of the incidents, the invaders, and the perpetrators, the insurgents. I don't support anyone committing violence and murder, whether rebel or US.

First smart thing you've said.

Iraq's economy has increased

I dont know about water but Iraqs power output has increased. The difference being that now 1) more than just Bagdad and Saddam's favorite towns have access to this power and 2) People are buying more goods that consume power such as satellite dishes.

Whats different about Iraq's education system now as before the war? If anything it should have improved.

The "stable" government you speak of kept it's citizens from killing each other by killing it's citizens before they had the chance.

Actually, it works exactly like that. Not always, but often.

It doesn't work like that, because it's publicity BS. It's great to be building stuff in Iraq, generating power and H20, but let us not forget that US bombs and other weaponry were responsible for knocking out many of the things the US is rebuilding.

Also, I've been told several times that we saved the people from the murders of Saddam Hussein. Soooo... I did some research, and found this.

The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

The figure i find most revealing is 70 - 125 deaths on average per day under Saddam Hussein.

So, this is what I did. Using the multitude of sources saying that there have been around 100,000 extra civilian deaths since the invasion, I then took the 2 years of the invasion, and broke those down into days. 730 days (guesstimated) since the invasion. Then 100,000 / 730 to give the average number of deaths per day. I get a guesstimation of 136.986301 deaths per day, which may be a conservative estimate, as the number of deaths was estimated as of late last year (Oct 2004). Notice my figure is over even the high estimate of the deaths per day under President Hussein.

You trust Moore? Oh brother! Forget it guys! He's a european. If they aren't killing us in Iraq, they'd be killing us somewhere else. Probably on our home soil. Take the fight to the Enemy. Standard War practice.



First smart thing you've said.

Racism is unbecoming sir. And I'll have you know that while I would gladly live in Europe, I live in North Carolina, United States of America, North America. And I do trust Moore. Someone would need to give me a hell of a lot of proof that he is lying, especially when there is a line by line factual backup of Farenheight 9/11 on his website. And Bowling for Columbine is a really great and funny movie, with much information in it. Your second point is ridiculous. Al-Quaida would attack the US on it's home soil, as they declared war back in the 90's. Iraq had no ties to Al-Quaida, and Saddam Hussein hated Osama Bin Laden, as they had conflicting plans for the future of the Mideast. Couple that with the fact that Iraq had no weapons capable of reaching the US, the idea that Iraq would attack the US is ridiculous. In fact the only connection between Iraq and Al-Quaida is religion and race, and as I stated before, racism is unbecoming.

And thanks for the compl-insult. :D

Its odd how everyone here, or at least most are up and arms about how this war is done. Well its not, the crazies are not going to go away. I can see the USA being in iraq for years.....

You forgot about the action figure they kidnapped. Hasbro is still trying to negotiate its release. (I wonder what that actual toy would fetch on Ebay?)
With or without it's head?

It doesn't work like that, because it's publicity BS. It's great to be building stuff in Iraq, generating power and H20, but let us not forget that US bombs and other weaponry were responsible for knocking out many of the things the US is rebuilding.

Also, I've been told several times that we saved the people from the murders of Saddam Hussein. Soooo... I did some research, and found this.

The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

The figure i find most revealing is 70 - 125 deaths on average per day under Saddam Hussein.

So, this is what I did. Using the multitude of sources saying that there have been around 100,000 extra civilian deaths since the invasion, I then took the 2 years of the invasion, and broke those down into days. 730 days (guesstimated) since the invasion. Then 100,000 / 730 to give the average number of deaths per day. I get a guesstimation of 136.986301 deaths per day, which may be a conservative estimate, as the number of deaths was estimated as of late last year (Oct 2004). Notice my figure is over even the high estimate of the deaths per day under President Hussein.

The big difference is that is you were not in the war, your odds of getting killed were alot less than your odds of some thug shooting you in modern day iraq. Saddam could have been removed without this huge costly war. Kill the sons of iraq and some of the cronies and keep the old power structure in place. Cause thats basically whats going to happen anyways...

Its odd how everyone here, or at least most are up and arms about how this war is done. Well its not, the crazies are not going to go away. I can see the USA being in iraq for years.....

Students!

War is soldier on soldier! The war against such people lasted for 1 month or 28 days if you prefer. Since that time, we have occupied the nation and are helping them rebuild their society.

There is a big difference between War, which lasted from March 15 (or so) to April 9 (Saddam's statue falling in Baghdad), and occupation (April 9 onward)! However, you can make the case that the occupation is over since the Iraqis have begun to govern themselves.

It doesn't work like that, because it's publicity BS. It's great to be building stuff in Iraq, generating power and H20, but let us not forget that US bombs and other weaponry were responsible for knocking out many of the things the US is rebuilding.

Also, I've been told several times that we saved the people from the murders of Saddam Hussein. Soooo... I did some research, and found this.

The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

The figure i find most revealing is 70 - 125 deaths on average per day under Saddam Hussein.

So, this is what I did. Using the multitude of sources saying that there have been around 100,000 extra civilian deaths since the invasion, I then took the 2 years of the invasion, and broke those down into days. 730 days (guesstimated) since the invasion. Then 100,000 / 730 to give the average number of deaths per day. I get a guesstimation of 136.986301 deaths per day, which may be a conservative estimate, as the number of deaths was estimated as of late last year (Oct 2004). Notice my figure is over even the high estimate of the deaths per day under President Hussein.

We didnt blow up power plants, we used graphite cables to short out transmission centers. We selectively struck targets of high value while leaving the infrastructe intact(as much as is realistically feasible). As far as wars go, the collateral damage was minimal.

Your number will change a lot if you use the more accepted and more probable 15000-20000 dead. Not to mention that this is a time limitted exercise. Meaning, with the US solution things will eventually get better. With your solution Saddam would have continued his ways and one of his sons would have picked it up when he passed on the reigns.

Conservative estimate of 100,000 dead. How did we manage that? We didnt carpet bomb. We only have 100,000+ troops there. Are you saying a large percentage of our guys got to kill their very own Iraqi? You understand that a large number of the troops stationed there are support/logistics types. While they can fight if need be, that isnt really their role.

So how do you figure that an estimate of 100,000 dead(in a 1 month war and 2 year security operation) makes even a little bit of sense?

The big difference is that is you were not in the war, your odds of getting killed were alot less than your odds of some thug shooting you in modern day iraq. Saddam could have been removed without this huge costly war. Kill the sons of iraq and some of the cronies and keep the old power structure in place. Cause thats basically whats going to happen anyways...

YES! There is what i mean by an ALTERNATE solution to war! Just kill the horrible dictator, or abduct him or whatever, and avoid the war.

You have truly earned you're nation's name.

Racism is unbecoming sir. And I'll have you know that while I would gladly live in Europe, I live in North Carolina, United States of America, North America. And I do trust Moore. Someone would need to give me a hell of a lot of proof that he is lying, especially when there is a line by line factual backup of Farenheight 9/11 on his website. And Bowling for Columbine is a really great and funny movie, with much information in it. Your second point is ridiculous. Al-Quaida would attack the US on it's home soil, as they declared war back in the 90's. Iraq had no ties to Al-Quaida, and Saddam Hussein hated Osama Bin Laden, as they had conflicting plans for the future of the Mideast. Couple that with the fact that Iraq had no weapons capable of reaching the US, the idea that Iraq would attack the US is ridiculous. In fact the only connection between Iraq and Al-Quaida is religion and race, and as I stated before, racism is unbecoming.

Where's the racism? I'm not even racist. I just said that your european and to forget about it. If its wrong sorry but Moore isn't even a credible source. If you trust Moore then there really is no hope in convincing you of anything. As for F 9/11, that movie has been so thoroughly debunked it isn't even funny but I shall not go into that here because this is about the Insurgents seeking an exit strategy. As for Al Qaeda, yes they did declare war. During the Clinton Administration. However, Clinton treated it as a criminal offense rather than what we're doing now. Zarqawi was known to be in Iraq prior to our invasion and was being treated for wounds suffered in Afghanistan when our forces attacked there. The enemy of thy enemy is thy friend.

As for the thread, to bring it back ontopic! The insurgents are finally learning that they will not be able to drive us away and so they are doing what is logical, giving up.

The big difference is that is you were not in the war, your odds of getting killed were alot less than your odds of some thug shooting you in modern day iraq. Saddam could have been removed without this huge costly war. Kill the sons of iraq and some of the cronies and keep the old power structure in place. Cause thats basically whats going to happen anyways...

I doubt that would've occured. No one could do anything about Saddam and assassination is in violation of US Law under executive order. Heck, most nations consider it a violation of international law if you assassinate someone from another country. The only way Saddam was going to go was through old age and we all know it.

YES! There is what i mean by an ALTERNATE solution to war! Just kill the horrible dictator, or abduct him or whatever, and avoid the war.

You have truly earned you're nation's name.

Two words!

International Law!

It does prohibit such actions to be taken.

We didnt blow up power plants, we used graphite cables to short out transmission centers. We selectively struck targets of high value while leaving the infrastructe intact(as much as is realistically feasible). As far as wars go, the collateral damage was minimal.

Your number will change a lot if you use the more accepted and more probable 15000-20000 dead. Not to mention that this is a time limitted exercise. Meaning, with the US solution things will eventually get better. With your solution Saddam would have continued his ways and one of his sons would have picked it up when he passed on the reigns.

Conservative estimate of 100,000 dead. How did we manage that? We didnt carpet bomb. We only have 100,000+ troops there. Are you saying a large percentage of our guys got to kill their very own Iraqi? You understand that a large number of the troops stationed there are support/logistics types. While they can fight if need be, that isnt really their role.

So how do you figure that an estimate of 100,000 dead(in a 1 month war and 2 year security operation) makes even a little bit of sense?

You misunderstand. I'm not sure exactly how many days there have been in this war (from invasion to present day), and that's where I estimated. I got the deaths figure from
here - http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?page=Article&ID=2324

and here - http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4E1656B7-910A-4C25-9647-2A850523A762.htm

and here - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm

and here - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

and here - http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

You get the picture. I got the most important fact in my guesstimation from a multitude of sources.

Students!

War is soldier on soldier! The war against such people lasted for 1 month or 28 days if you prefer. Since that time, we have occupied the nation and are helping them rebuild their society.

There is a big difference between War, which lasted from March 15 (or so) to April 9 (Saddam's statue falling in Baghdad), and occupation (April 9 onward)! However, you can make the case that the occupation is over since the Iraqis have begun to govern themselves.


So the thugs and bandits taking pot shots at convoys and robbing + murdering peops and the terrorists blowing up non combatants are really just out for a good time ?

Two words!

International Law!

It does prohibit such actions to be taken.
It isnt international law(which is almost an oxymoron), it is US law.

The law aside,

Simply killing Saddam wouldnt have fixed much. Look at all the things going on in the middle east right now. Do you think they would be happening if the US didnt liberate Iraq?

A lot of good is coming from this and much of it isnt localized to Iraq. I dont think that would have happened if we simply picked of Saddam and his sons.

So the thugs and bandits taking pot shots at convoys and robbing + murdering peops and the terrorists blowing up non combatants are really just out for a good time ?

They are trying to drive us out! However, the war ended April 9! This is only the 2nd phase, or is it the 3rd now! They are an insurgency or resistence if you like, to the legitimate government of Iraq. That done by the Iraqi people themselves. Almost like the French Resistence to German Rule back during WWII, only this time, they want a theocratic state to exist and that won't happen.

So yes, the war is over. The US did win that war now we have moved on to a different phase. That phase is rebuilding Iraq.

It isnt international law(which is almost an oxymoron), it is US law.

International Law frowns on Assassination too so I went with the bigger of the 2! :D

The law aside,

Simply killing Saddam wouldnt have fixed much. Look at all the things going on in the middle east right now. Do you think they would be happening if the US didnt liberate Iraq?

Nope! I don't think they will. Domino theory in reverse I think! :)

A lot of good is coming from this and much of it isnt localized to Iraq. I dont think that would have happened if we simply picked of Saddam and his sons.

I agree 100%!

Two words!

International Law!

It does prohibit such actions to be taken.

International Law, eh?

How about Chapter IV, Article 33 section 1 of the UN Charter?

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

Or Chapter I, Article 2, Sections 1 - 4

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


What I couldn't find is the article that authorizes a nation to take a dispute to the security council, get shot down, then bypass that descision and strike anyway.

And, in the end, assassination of a dictator to avoid a war is a better, smarter course of action and more in line with the spirit of international law - the prevention of armed conflict.

Anyways, I really gotta go. Thanks to all for the discussion.

Before the war Iraq had a thriving economy (for the Mideast), functional utilities IE power, water, etc, an education system, and a stable government able to keep the people from killing each other. You cannot go into a nation, destroy what it had, rebuild it, and claim to be a humanitarian. It just doen't work like that.
Bwahahahaha!!!!

That MUST be sarcasm. In which case it is pure genious. No informed person could consider it otherwise. Nobody could be THAT uninformed.

International Law, eh?

How about Chapter IV, Article 33 section 1 of the UN Charter?

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

This was done! Seventeen UN resolutions anyone? Besides, the UN Charter didn't mean that the US gave up its right to wage war!

Or Chapter I, Article 2, Sections 1 - 4

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

Yep! True. I won't dispute it.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

This we did when we enforced 17 UN resolutions and a Cease-fire!

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Not when they get broken as Saddam did. When a Cease-fire gets broken, its war all over again.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Again, if a nation violates a cease-fire, its war. Iraq violated such a cease-fire and therefor, it was up to the UN to go back to war! They didnt so the US used its right to go to war and enforced them anyway with the help of dozens of nations.

What I couldn't find is the article that authorizes a nation to take a dispute to the security council, get shot down, then bypass that descision and strike anyway.

Soveriegnty? The Right to wage war on another nation?

And, in the end, assassination of a dictator to avoid a war is a better, smarter course of action and more in line with the spirit of international law - the prevention of armed conflict.

Frowned upon. Think we're in hot water now? Can you imagine if we assassinated that son of a bitch?

Anyways, I really gotta go. Thanks to all for the discussion.

Hey your quite welcome. I actually look forward to our next encounter :)

You misunderstand. I'm not sure exactly how many days there have been in this war (from invasion to present day), and that's where I estimated. I got the deaths figure from
here - http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?page=Article&ID=2324

and here - http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4E1656B7-910A-4C25-9647-2A850523A762.htm

and here - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm

and here - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

and here - http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

You get the picture. I got the most important fact in my guesstimation from a multitude of sources.

You JACKASS!!!

You quoted 4 sites that refer to the same study(Lancet). How is that getting information from multiple sources. Good to know that you were so proud of your multiple sources of information though

If the mistake was an honest one, then I apologise for the jackass comment.

Did you even read the Washington post article? It points out many interesting facts about the "survey" that you are quoting.

Things like
1) the extra 100,000 dead being extrapolated from a raw number of only 73 dead.

2) they found that 84% of the 73 dead were from coalition forces and of that number 95% were from Helicopter gunships, rockets or other aeriel bombardment. I find this strange given that all the other surveys(I will list some) believed that the ground war caused more fatalities than the air war.(Oh, even the Washington post article pointed that out).

Then I thought that it would be pretty damn convenient for biased researchers to find buildings with big holes in them and ask if anyone had died if they said yes then ask by what means. Remember, all they did to get this info was knock on 988 doors and ask the residents if anybody had died in the household.

3) quote from washington post article
"The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting," said Marc E. Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which investigated the number of civilian deaths that occurred during the invasion. "These numbers seem to be inflated."

But Garlasco of Human Rights Watch said it is extremely difficult to estimate civilian casualties, especially based on relatively small numbers. "I certainly think that 100,000 is a reach," Garlasco said.

Human rights watch being that pro war/ pro military organization that it is

4) No wonder you think M Moore is believable and that he doesnt grossly warp everything in BFC and F 9/11

some links. I thought of posting more, but whats the point. You dont even know anything/read the links you post.

Pay attention to the bottom of the CS monitor article. Notice the other surveys it lists and the numbers they list as civillian casualties.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html

edit

An article in slate that you should probably read because it specifically talks about the 100,000 dead survey
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

edit 2
Oh this is rich, read this little excerpt about the lancet(where it was published survey)

It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

from slate

Bwahahahaha!!!!

That MUST be sarcasm. In which case it is pure genious. No informed person could consider it otherwise. Nobody could be THAT uninformed.


Before the first gulf war and the santions, iraq was fairly well off. IT was secular and compared to the other nations in the area it was rich.

Saddam just killed kurds for fun and started a really bloody war.

Lots of tin pot dictators around just as bad as this guy...

You JACKASS!!!

You quoted 4 sites that refer to the same study(Lancet). How is that getting information from multiple sources. Good to know that you were so proud of your multiple sources of information though

If the mistake was an honest one, then I apologise for the jackass comment.

Did you even read the Washington post article? It points out many interesting facts about the "survey" that you are quoting.

Things like
1) the extra 100,000 dead being extrapolated from a raw number of only 73 dead.

2) they found that 84% of the 73 dead were from coalition forces and of that number 95% were from Helicopter gunships, rockets or other aeriel bombardment. I find this strange given that all the other surveys(I will list some) believed that the ground war caused more fatalities than the air war.(Oh, even the Washington post article pointed that out).

Then I thought that it would be pretty damn convenient for biased researchers to find buildings with big holes in them and ask if anyone had died if they said yes then ask by what means. Remember, all they did to get this info was knock on 988 doors and ask the residents if anybody had died in the household.

3) quote from washington post article




Human rights watch being that pro war/ pro military organization that it is

4) No wonder you think M Moore is believable and that he doesnt grossly warp everything in BFC and F 9/11

some links. I thought of posting more, but whats the point. You dont even know anything/read the links you post.

Pay attention to the bottom of the CS monitor article. Notice the other surveys it lists and the numbers they list as civillian casualties.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html


Well shit only 18K dead, whoooo weee! a job well done :rolleyes:

Why on earth didnt the USA just blow up saddam and his cronies and leave the bloody power base intact, instead of having this low level war?

Before the first gulf war and the santions, iraq was fairly well off. IT was secular and compared to the other nations in the area it was rich.

Saddam just killed kurds for fun and started a really bloody war.

Lots of tin pot dictators around just as bad as this guy...


OMG! It IS a full moon in liberal land!!!

Well shit only 18K dead, whoooo weee! a job well done :rolleyes:

Why on earth didnt the USA just blow up saddam and his cronies and leave the bloody power base intact, instead of having this low level war?

We tried at the start of this! Didn't you watch the first missiles being dropped on a bunker that he was alledgedly in? Come to find out he wasn't there thanks to a double cross but meh.

Well shit only 18K dead, whoooo weee! a job well done :rolleyes:

Why on earth didnt the USA just blow up saddam and his cronies and leave the bloody power base intact, instead of having this low level war?
because Saddam had more than 18,001 cronies...

Well shit only 18K dead, whoooo weee! a job well done :rolleyes:

Why on earth didnt the USA just blow up saddam and his cronies and leave the bloody power base intact, instead of having this low level war?

I was responding to the poster who was trying to make te assertion that Iraqis were better off under Saddam.

As to 18k dead, that by itself is neither here nor there. How many would have been killed anyway? I dont know, but I wasnt the one making that particular argument.

For an urban war, I would think that 18k in a population of 30 million over 2 years is a pretty acceptable(as much as any death is "acceptable" I suppose) number.

I was responding to the poster who was trying to make te assertion that Iraqis were better off under Saddam.

As to 18k dead, that by itself is neither here nor there. How many would have been killed anyway? I dont know, but I wasnt the one making that particular argument.

For an urban war, I would think that 18k in a population of 30 million over 2 years is a pretty acceptable(as much as any death is "acceptable" I suppose) number.

I am willing to bet that number would have been a hell of alot less if saddam would have been taken out instead of invading the country.

I doubt that would've occured. No one could do anything about Saddam and assassination is in violation of US Law under executive order. Heck, most nations consider it a violation of international law if you assassinate someone from another country. The only way Saddam was going to go was through old age and we all know it.

Thats complete BS!!

The usa could have at least supported the little uprising against saddam, covertly taken him out etc ect...

Two words!

International Law!

It does prohibit such actions to be taken.

ooook. Support international law when its in your interest... lol

Thats complete BS!!

The usa could have at least supported the little uprising against saddam, covertly taken him out etc ect...

Another minor problem! After we didn't support their last one, they couldn't attempt another one. BTW: We pulled our support the first time it happened. Unless you want to try and re-arm the Shi'ites and Sunnis! I wish you luck if you could.

Besides, Saddam's Republican Guard had the bigger weapons to defeat any rebel attack. If they did launch a rebellion against Saddam, our forces still would've had to go in to support it for that very reason.

ooook. Support international law when its in your interest... lol

Care to point out, oh wise one, what international law we broke?

Oh wait, we didn't break any international laws. Nevermind.

You dont really win this war, you just stay and keep the peace for a looong time.

I dont doubt that its getting tiring for the average thug to keep fighting the US, however you are going to see crazies in that country for years and years taking pot shots at whoever is in control. Whether the country implodes after the usa leaves remains to be seen....

Yep. The Japanese Imperial faction and the Fourth Reich are planning their moves right now. :D

(Yes, this is tongue-in-cheek.)

Obviously, some people can't handle the prospect of being so wrong about the insurgency. They can't handle the idea that they've been crowing that the insurgency will win - the insurgency will defeat the Americans - and then the insurgents turn around and ask for an "exit strategy".

I believe that some people were waiting for John Kerry to get elected so the US would seek an "exit strategy". Looks like the American people were waiting for the insurgents to become "hands uppers".

Good thing we didn't elect a surrender monkey.

Obviously, some people can't handle the prospect of being so wrong about the insurgency. They can't handle the idea that they've been crowing that the insurgency will win - the insurgency will defeat the Americans - and then the insurgents turn around and ask for an "exit strategy".

I believe that some people were waiting for John Kerry to get elected so the US would seek an "exit strategy". Looks like the American people were waiting for the insurgents to become "hands uppers".

Good thing we didn't elect a surrender monkey.

I didn't know Kerry was French! Learn something new everyday :D

Seriously though WL, you do have a point. The war was won now the fight against the insurgency is being won. We had free election in Iraq and now they are in the process of forming a constitution.

Chalk one up for the good guys :)

I am willing to bet that number would have been a hell of alot less if saddam would have been taken out instead of invading the country.


Kill Sadam, and Uday takes command (after quietly assassinating his dear brother). (Or visa versa... but being head of the secret police gives you a big advantage in that regard.)

Kill Sadam, Uday, and Qusay (spelling?), and you get one of three things:

1: A high-ranking Ba'athist takes power. Likely a military man. Worst-case scenario, "Chemical" Ali. Ba'ath Sunni tyranny over the nation stays the same, Kurds still live from day to day in fear of their lives. Iraq, not wanting to make a big stir, keeps funding terrorists, or the families thereof. Nothing changes except who the bastard in charge is. Maybe he turns out better, maybe he turns out worse, most likely he turns out the same, but slightly weaker. The US wins for the time being, and in the meanwhile has violated the Geneva Convention (I'm actually not certain of this. Did Iraq sign it? Are we obligated to treat them according to it if they did not?).

2: Multiple high-ranking Ba'athists claim power, and a civil war ensues. A couple hundred thousand die, then head back to option one. A couple purges occur, making sure that none of the opposition survives to oppose you now that you have power and there is nobody to oppose you. Oops! Hey, Ali, where's that sarin we got from Uncle Sam? Hundreds of thousands die.

3: Multiple high-ranking Ba'athists claim power, and a civil war ensues. Nobody gains power, the Kurds ceceed from the nation, the Shia rise up against their Sunni neighbors, who withdraw into the "Sunni Triangle", spend a few months scrabbling for control over their mini-state, draw a border on a map, and declare the independance of Triangliraq. Kurdistan, Iraq (now controlled by the Shias), and Triangliraq exist in a fragile state of near war a la India and Pakistan for 30 years. The UN sends a thousand troops to the most pacified city and makes sure the Red Cross flights don't get shot down on their way to deliver bottled water and penecilin to the Iraqis.
Millions die.

-Feil

I am willing to bet that number would have been a hell of alot less if saddam would have been taken out instead of invading the country.

Really? And when one of his sons tok over and continued his policies would the death toll have increased? I guess we could take out the entire family. Even then though, the next guy in charge probably would have continued the very same policies. On and on. Do we just keep assassinating them?

Do you know why they would have kept following Saddam's policies? I dont think he killed and raped people solely because he was sadistic. I think Saddam did these things to his people because that was the only way he could remain in control. So how exactly would killing him have fixed things?

Also, do you think the other dictators in the region would be enacting what reforms(or slivers of reforms) they are if all we did was assassinate Saddam? I mean it took 1 invasion(kuwait), 10 yrs, shooting at US planes, gassing his own population, 17 UN resolutions ignored and repeatedly telling the US to go to hell before we threatened him to stop and then killed him. Not something that is going to make the rest of the dictators scared enough to make any real changes. And certainly not enough to embolden the populations in the region to stand up for themselves.

Do you think Iraq would be as tolerant of its younger much more pro western/real democracy generation as it is If the US army wasnt parked in a neighboring country?

I've seen several anti-Bush people post IN FAVOR of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. The same people who cry that Guantanamo is a violation of international law.

They would rather see a country headless and in permanent, unmitigated chaos, with a swift return to yet another dictator, than attempt to stabilize a country and fully remove the apparatus of power that brought the dictator into place.

They would also not like to see the US clean up its messes. The US had a major hand in creating Saddam. We also created al-Qaeda - by sponsoring guerillas in Soviet-era Afghanistan. Now that we're cleaning up the mess, trying to bring a better life and more stability and elected governments, those same people would rather that the original killers still be in power.

They would rather have Saddam still executing 300,000 Shias. They would rather have him gassing his population. They would rather that the Taliban were shooting women in the head in soccer pitches. They would rather see children shot for flying a kite in Afghanistan. To them, this is their ultimate vision of self-determination - a domination of a helpless population by thugs, rapists, and killers who fill ditches with the dead for fun.

These same people were also against the intervention in Kosovo. They argued at the UN that we should do nothing. Had it not been for US arguments at NATO, which prompted NATO to act, the killing would still be going on there as well - with women and children shot into pits.

To these that argue against US action, innumerable women and children shot execution style by a ruthless local dictator is morally superior to engaging insurgents in combat and eliminating them.

Notice that no one who believes that the US is "losing" the war has touched this thread yet.

I don't know many people who think that the US are losing, I do know people who think that the war has produced a stalemate position (insofar as the US is going to have to stick around to defend Iraq, because there are some people who are just going to keep on coming back...and back...and back), and that the War on Terror itself is futile because you can't kill off a practice, and the only real action you can take is inducing situations such as the above.

I don't know many people who think that the US are losing, I do know people who think that the war has produced a stalemate position (insofar as the US is going to have to stick around to defend Iraq, because there are some people who are just going to keep on coming back...and back...and back), and that the War on Terror itself is futile because you can't kill off a practice, and the only real action you can take is inducing situations such as the above.

The stalemate seems to be swinging in the US favor. Apparently, the insurgents are tired of getting killed when they directly oppose US troops, and the locals are tired of getting killed by random car bombs.

More, the insurgents realize they're going to be irrelevant soon - unless they drop the guns and join the political process.

Plenty of people on this forum who have constantly posted that the US is "losing" the war in Iraq.

The stalemate seems to be swinging in the US favor. Apparently, the insurgents are tired of getting killed when they directly oppose US troops, and the locals are tired of getting killed by random car bombs.

Yep! Just like the article stated. They are tired and their cause has been hurt badly.

More, the insurgents realize they're going to be irrelevant soon - unless they drop the guns and join the political process.

Correctamundo

Plenty of people on this forum who have constantly posted that the US is "losing" the war in Iraq.

All too true.

I didn't know Kerry was French! Learn something new everyday :D

Seriously though WL, you do have a point. The war was won now the fight against the insurgency is being won. We had free election in Iraq and now they are in the process of forming a constitution.

Chalk one up for the good guys :)


I dont think Kerry is French, but you can be sure he would have personally visited them for each and every international decison he was faced with. God forbid they arent on our side whole heartedly. I can imagine President Kerry waiting nervously in a French ambassador's office, rehearsing to himself how he'll sell his idea...

Since we NEVER hear any good news from Iraq from the official media, let's hear from someone who has just returned from there (a young man I know who just came back).

I was up near a city called Al HATRA, which is about 75 klicks straight south of Mosul and then another 20 klicks west. The living conditions for the locals were primitive. Electricity was spottily provided, due to the general low up keep of the power grid. I mean there is electricity going to mud brick houses with dirt floors and thatch roofs! Do you think there might be a short sometime!?! UGH!

I was a superviser of about ten workers and they were excited to be working for $10-$12 a day! There was NO other source of income in the area. My workers worked 6 days a week, 12 hour days. Many were getting a satellite system and TV for the first time in their lives! Saddam had outlawed any form of TV other than state run propaganda, if someone was found with a satellite dish, their whole family was executed. If another family knew of the dish but didn't tell the police, then they were executed as well. Others in my crew were getting Air Conditioning, refrigerators ('Tha-lidge'! or ice!)

The workers in this area are still governed by a Sheik who takes a portion of their money similar to a Union or Mafia boss. It is a clan based system and has worked for thousands of years and they will NOT change that, it is the only way they know. Under Saddam, school only went until a person was 12-13, then they were out and working. Rare examples would have their family rep (normally the Father) go before the Sheik to plead for the clan to send their child for further education in Mosul and possibly to university. This was rarely done for the honorable son, first born male of the first wife.

It was RIGHT ON FUCKING AMAZING for me to see some of my younger workers (approx. 16 yo) working their asses off to save enough money because they have the FIRE to go to University! They wanted to do it themselves and NOT have their family indebted to the Sheik to go to University! Either that, or because of plural marriage there, they may be the son of the third or fourth wife, and the Father just won't go to bat for those kids. Yeah it gets confusing.

Tell your friends the American presence is creating a middle-class. Under Saddam there was the extremely wealthy (2%) the business middle class (2%) and the others were dirt assed poor (96%). These are rough guess-timates from talking with the whole village and is based on a rural area in the north-west of Iraq and I was told it is very similar for the North of Iraq above Baghdad, with some minor population skewing in the cities.

I was a senior in college when I took off and went to Iraq for a UXO contracting gig for eight months. I went because I wanted to support our troops and America in this endeavor and I believe in the Iraqi Freedom cause. My College (Columbia College of Missouri) is an evening college and generally has more mature adult students who appreciate what college is and how much it costs in time and money. But that didn't even compare to the fire that was lit in some of my workers! They wanted to be better, they knew they could do it, they just desired the oppurtunity. The United States of America helped fulfill that oppurtunity for them. Not by giving them money for college, not by providing them a loan. BUT, by allowing them an oppurtunity to fucking TOIL and earn a profitable wage! They EARNED that money and were very appreciative of their accomplishments & earnings! When I left last Novemeber, 2 of my original 10 were off to Mosul for University. Whether they make it or not, they are definately better for trying!

The city of Al HATRA is better for the presence of the US Army there, as more people have money to make money with! I am very thankful for my own oppurtunity to contribute to America and the Iraqi Freedom cause. I would love to go back, but my Fiancee is worried, due to the media over-stating the dangers to civilians working in Iraq (maybe because the media that is over there never served in the military and are a bunch of pussies!?!).

Since we NEVER hear any good news from Iraq from the official media, let's hear from someone who has just returned from there (a young man I know who just came back).

I was up near a city called Al HATRA, which is about 75 klicks straight south of Mosul and then another 20 klicks west. The living conditions for the locals were primitive. Electricity was spottily provided, due to the general low up keep of the power grid. I mean there is electricity going to mud brick houses with dirt floors and thatch roofs! Do you think there might be a short sometime!?! UGH!

I was a superviser of about ten workers and they were excited to be working for $10-$12 a day! There was NO other source of income in the area. My workers worked 6 days a week, 12 hour days. Many were getting a satellite system and TV for the first time in their lives! Saddam had outlawed any form of TV other than state run propaganda, if someone was found with a satellite dish, their whole family was executed. If another family knew of the dish but didn't tell the police, then they were executed as well. Others in my crew were getting Air Conditioning, refrigerators ('Tha-lidge'! or ice!)

The workers in this area are still governed by a Sheik who takes a portion of their money similar to a Union or Mafia boss. It is a clan based system and has worked for thousands of years and they will NOT change that, it is the only way they know. Under Saddam, school only went until a person was 12-13, then they were out and working. Rare examples would have their family rep (normally the Father) go before the Sheik to plead for the clan to send their child for further education in Mosul and possibly to university. This was rarely done for the honorable son, first born male of the first wife.

It was RIGHT ON FUCKING AMAZING for me to see some of my younger workers (approx. 16 yo) working their asses off to save enough money because they have the FIRE to go to University! They wanted to do it themselves and NOT have their family indebted to the Sheik to go to University! Either that, or because of plural marriage there, they may be the son of the third or fourth wife, and the Father just won't go to bat for those kids. Yeah it gets confusing.

Tell your friends the American presence is creating a middle-class. Under Saddam there was the extremely wealthy (2%) the business middle class (2%) and the others were dirt assed poor (96%). These are rough guess-timates from talking with the whole village and is based on a rural area in the north-west of Iraq and I was told it is very similar for the North of Iraq above Baghdad, with some minor population skewing in the cities.

I was a senior in college when I took off and went to Iraq for a UXO contracting gig for eight months. I went because I wanted to support our troops and America in this endeavor and I believe in the Iraqi Freedom cause. My College (Columbia College of Missouri) is an evening college and generally has more mature adult students who appreciate what college is and how much it costs in time and money. But that didn't even compare to the fire that was lit in some of my workers! They wanted to be better, they knew they could do it, they just desired the oppurtunity. The United States of America helped fulfill that oppurtunity for them. Not by giving them money for college, not by providing them a loan. BUT, by allowing them an oppurtunity to fucking TOIL and earn a profitable wage! They EARNED that money and were very appreciative of their accomplishments & earnings! When I left last Novemeber, 2 of my original 10 were off to Mosul for University. Whether they make it or not, they are definately better for trying!

The city of Al HATRA is better for the presence of the US Army there, as more people have money to make money with! I am very thankful for my own oppurtunity to contribute to America and the Iraqi Freedom cause. I would love to go back, but my Fiancee is worried, due to the media over-stating the dangers to civilians working in Iraq (maybe because the media that is over there never served in the military and are a bunch of pussies!?!).


This is great, encouraging news. But I am not surprised. I think rational people here expected this would be the outcome, its certainly what all well intentioned Americans hoped for.
Good job! -us rational Americans remain optimistic, knowing this positive change will come with time and effort, despite all those who want to see it fail, just so they can be right.
And down the road, hopefully, an independent,healthy and progressive Iraq will be a true ally and and trade partner of the US.

bump

The stalemate seems to be swinging in the US favor. Apparently, the insurgents are tired of getting killed when they directly oppose US troops, and the locals are tired of getting killed by random car bombs.

More, the insurgents realize they're going to be irrelevant soon - unless they drop the guns and join the political process.

Plenty of people on this forum who have constantly posted that the US is "losing" the war in Iraq.

The article you've been linking too states that the leader of an Iraqi monarchist movement who knows some guerilla leaders says that insurgents ant to end their campaign. Oh, I see he speaks for all of the insurgents in Iraq! Oh wait, no he doesn't.

From what I can see, he's saying that many insurgents are really people who just took up arms in response to the attacks to ensure their own security, however he also mentions the insurgency wing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He is only talking on behalf of Sunni Arab insurgents, and even then he cannot talk for all of them. Does he know them all personally?

'The insurgents', or some of them? There are always, as Jaythewise put it, 'crazies', and even if some lay down their arms in Iraq, there will still be a fair amount. Would the US be able to pull out now, in your opinion? I rest my case.

This is certainly an improvement, I wasn't denying it. But the US troops aren't going to be pulling out just yet, mark my words.

This is certainly an improvement, I wasn't denying it. But the US troops aren't going to be pulling out just yet, mark my words.

You'll notice we're still in Germany.

Also, you're not one of the ones that said that the US would NEVER win and would NEVER defeat the insurgents and would NEVER have a stable Iraq.

You'll notice we're still in Germany.

Also, you're not one of the ones that said that the US would NEVER win and would NEVER defeat the insurgents and would NEVER have a stable Iraq.

And Iceland. Don't forget Iceland. ;)

Obviously, some people can't handle the prospect of being so wrong about the insurgency. They can't handle the idea that they've been crowing that the insurgency will win - the insurgency will defeat the Americans - and then the insurgents turn around and ask for an "exit strategy".

I believe that some people were waiting for John Kerry to get elected so the US would seek an "exit strategy". Looks like the American people were waiting for the insurgents to become "hands uppers".

Good thing we didn't elect a surrender monkey.


Unless I missed a lot of posts the point was not if the Allied forces would win, but that the reasons we went in officially were wrong.

And Iceland. Don't forget Iceland. ;)

Yes, we all know what a world dominating threat Iceland poses. :rolleyes:

Yes, we all know what a world dominating threat Iceland poses. :rolleyes:

Yet you have forces in Iceland.

Yet you have forces in Iceland.

IIRC, there was a squadron of F-15s stationed there along with some AWACS to cover the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap during the Cold War.

They reduced the number of planes down to 4 F-15 fighters. They are apparently there to handle intercepts of Bear reconnaissance planes from Russia which still overfly the area.

There aren't any other US forces there.

IIRC, there was a squadron of F-15s stationed there along with some AWACS to cover the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap during the Cold War.

They reduced the number of planes down to 4 F-15 fighters. They are apparently there to handle intercepts of Bear reconnaissance planes from Russia which still overfly the area.

There aren't any other US forces there.


Somewhere down the road, it would be a real benefit to the US if we did have a full scale military installation in Iraq. Being optimistic, seeing the very real possibilty Iraq should eventually be healthy and stable and welcome a base there. A base in the middle that region could benefit both countries tremendously.