NationStates Jolt Archive

The worst day of violence since the surge, and the worst single attack since... february? Somewhere between 114 and 140 dead in a food market in Sadriya district, the same market where 130 were killed in february. An estimated 158 killed in total in Baghdad yesterday, while the day's death toll ended at nearly 230.

230 people killed... Not to mention the many wounded, of which we have no number.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6567329.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800799.html?hpid=topnews

I don't expect many to post in this thread, or, frankly, even read it. I just thought I should post it as a counterweight to the school-shooting threads. Just for the sake of perspective, not for comparison...

But.... the troop surge is helping.... isn't it? :(

You can't spell insurgency without surge.

But.... the troop surge is helping.... isn't it? :(

Depends on who you ask...
While execution-style killings have dropped since the security crackdown began, bombings have remained steady. Lt. Col. Christopher C. Garver, a U.S. military spokesman, defended the plan Wednesday, saying it was too soon to assess its results because only 60 percent of the 28,000 additional troops deployed by President Bush are in place. Garver said two additional brigades will arrive in early June to help suppress the violence by shutting bomb factories and killing militants.

But he acknowledged that the military "runs the risk of losing" popular support in the face of continued massive attacks, and said the military was concerned that Wednesday's attacks could trigger a new outbreak of sectarian bloodshed.

At the site of the bombing, Ali, the shopkeeper, expressed his frustration. "Saddam's time was much better than the new government," he said. "At least he was providing us security and stability, and he did not make us worry about our children and our lives."

One can hardly imagine a surge of this small a size "working".

I am trying to figure out whether

a. it's a tactic to stall a withdrawal
b. it's supposed to help the current Prime Minister while we pound al-Sadr's militia
c. there's not a reason at all

If you had 1 million infantrymen, and did a surge that way, and went door to door and farm to farm in the entire country, searching for weapons, etc., and shot or captured those who resisted, you would still not really "settle" the place down.

Oh sure, for a bit. But people can reaquire weapons, and start up again when you've left.

The worst day of violence since the surge, and the worst single attack since... february? Somewhere between 114 and 140 dead in a food market in Sadriya district, the same market where 130 were killed in february. An estimated 158 killed in total in Baghdad yesterday, while the day's death toll ended at nearly 230.

230 people killed... Not to mention the many wounded, of which we have no number.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6567329.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800799.html?hpid=topnews

I don't expect many to post in this thread, or, frankly, even read it. I just thought I should post it as a counterweight to the school-shooting threads. Just for the sake of perspective, not for comparison...
It's just another sad day for Iraq. The loss of human life there is just as horrible as was the loss of human life in the Virginea Tech massacre, or Columbine, or Platte Canyon, or the recent Chinese mining accident, or any other loss of life anywhere in the world for any reason. Human life is always precious...every single person has hopes, feelings, dreams, wishes, desires...everyone is fully human even if we cannot always see it because of our somewhat limited brains.

I feel like the surge is working. Insurgents aren't able to carry out large scale coordinated attacks. Suicide bombing only takes 1 determined individual. I think we've seen time and time again that if there's a will there's a way.

I feel like the surge is working. Insurgents aren't able to carry out large scale coordinated attacks. Suicide bombing only takes 1 determined individual. I think we've seen time and time again that if there's a will there's a way.

And as soon as we let up, they'll come back.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

At the site of the bombing, Ali, the shopkeeper, expressed his frustration. "Saddam's time was much better than the new government," he said. "At least he was providing us security and stability, and he did not make us worry about our children and our lives."Sure he provided security if you were a Sunni, but tell that to the 2,000,000 Iraqi Shia's who were murdered during his reign.

Whilst the surge is "working" in that violence has been down lately, it is only because major militia's such as the Mehdi army have been laying low, waiting for the American's to go away so they can continue thier rampaging sectarian genocide. It doesn't matter if you had 10 times the number of troops, hell even if you killed most of the active Iraqi militia fighters the problem that is Iraq wouldn't go away. The conflict between the various sects of Iraqi's has come so far that they have went far past the line of econciliation. This conflict is unfortunately going to go on until either Sunni's or Shia's are predominant.

And as soon as we let up, they'll come back.

Where there's a will, there's a way.True which is why the US military should be looking at a more radical method to combat the insurgency. Perhaps a resettlement program?

Sure he provided security if you were a Sunni, but tell that to the 2,000,000 Iraqi Shia's who were murdered during his reign.

The bombing took part in a Shia area so you bet the shopkeeper was also Shia. It's telling when the Shia's are the ones who say things were better under Hussein.

True which is why the US military should be looking at a more radical method to combat the insurgency. Perhaps a resettlement program?

A resettlement program is equivalent to ethnic cleansing, if that's what I think your are implying when you say "resettlement".

True which is why the US military should be looking at a more radical method to combat the insurgency. Perhaps a resettlement program?

I don't think you understand.

It's certainly possible, with enough men, to "stabilize" the area. But the moment we leave, even if five years from now, these people will be killing each other.

Got it?

I feel like the surge is working. Insurgents aren't able to carry out large scale coordinated attacks. Suicide bombing only takes 1 determined individual. I think we've seen time and time again that if there's a will there's a way.

Great, but didn't large scale attacks just end up getting a whole shitload of insurgents killed when the US troops showed up and returned fire?

The bombing took part in a Shia area so you bet the shopkeeper was also Shia. It's telling when the Shia's are the ones who say things were better under Hussein.Thanks I missed that.

"It targeted the population in a way that reminds us of the massacres and genocide committed by the former dictatorship."Like Saddam these terrorists don't distinguish between men, women, and children. It makes me sick to my stomach to think of people capable of such violence and cruelty.

I don't think you understand.

It's certainly possible, with enough men, to "stabilize" the area. But the moment we leave, even if five years from now, these people will be killing each other.

Got it?

Yeah. Basically it well be quite similiar to former Yugoslavia, except with no EUFOR or NATO peacekeeping.

Yeah. Basically it well be quite similiar to former Yugoslavia, except with no EUFOR or NATO peacekeeping.

Then you realize that the surge cannot possibly work, long term.

Then you realize that the surge cannot possibly work, long term.

This I realised sometime last year, when I read a newspaper article that blew my mind. Iraq is now officially a full blown genocidal civil war, where the combating sides will never be able to achieve true reconciliation for decades. It's like Yugoslavia all over again, except a lot worse.

Then you realize that the surge cannot possibly work, long term.

Because long term means occupation, which nobody wants.

Because long term means occupation, which nobody wants.

I think in order for it to have even a chance at working, you would have to occupy the place for fifty years (and maybe not even then).

One might argue that even if the US had not invaded, Saddam's regime (or his son's regime) would have eventually collapsed, and the same internecine warfare ensued. But at least we wouldn't be in the middle of it.

We should either commit to staying in force, or leaving immediately. But apparently, the President doesn't have the balls to commit and the Congress doesn't have the balls to withdraw. So we'll probably get some halfway "solution" that is the most efficient clusterfuck they can think of.

I don't think you understand.

It's certainly possible, with enough men, to "stabilize" the area. But the moment we leave, even if five years from now, these people will be killing each other.

Got it?Right that's why I said the "I feel like the surge is working." ;) No what I'm saying is the military needs a more radical approach to achieving peace. A resettlement program might accomplish this. What the military needs to do is move a large amount of Iraqis into protected hamlets that are closely guarded by Iraqi troops supervised by Coalition forces. That way the insurgency is robbed of potential recruits and aid.

Right that's why I said the "I feel like the surge is working." ;) No what I'm saying is the military needs a more radical approach to achieving peace. A resettlement program might accomplish this. What the military needs to do is move a large amount of Iraqis into protected hamlets that are closely guarded by Iraqi troops supervised by Coalition forces. That way the insurgency is robbed of potential recruits and aid.

Most people in Iraq live in cities or towns.

This isn't Vietnam.

Most people in Iraq live in cities or towns.

This isn't Vietnam.Oh I realize that, but honestly what's the difference? What's it gonna change if you move a family from the city to a rural protected village? I think it's better than the alternatives which have served to only alienate the populace. Of course the Coalition would have to figure out a way to provide work for those who are resettled.

Oh I realize that, but honestly what's the difference? What's it gonna change if you move a family from the city to a rural protected village? I think it's better than the alternatives which have served to only alienate the populace. Of course the Coalition would have to figure out a way to provide work for those who are resettled.

That's a one way ticket to pissing everyone off, and destroying the Iraqi economy.

That's a one way ticket to pissing everyone off, and destroying the Iraqi economy.

I don't think so. Besides you think they're not ticked off enough already? I think the UN number of 50,000 Iraqis fleeing a month(?) is evidence enough that they want to escape the violence of the cities. I'm not exactly sure about this, but I read recently that 40% of Iraqis are unemployed. So my question for you is what economy? I think any unemployed Iraqi would be happy to escape the violence and get a job as well.

Taking withdrawal of the table as an alternative what would you propose the military do?

I'm sorry, but resettlement as you put it is equal to ethnic cleansing, and uprooting Iraqi families from thier property, giving it to someone of a different sect and dumping them halfway across the country with nothing except what they could carry, with no immediate employment oppurtinities is just morally reprehensible.

I don't think so. Besides you think they're not ticked off enough already? I think the UN number of 50,000 Iraqis fleeing a month(?) is evidence enough that they want to escape the violence of the cities. I'm not exactly sure about this, but I read recently that 40% of Iraqis are unemployed. So my question for you is what economy? I think any unemployed Iraqi would be happy to escape the violence and get a job as well.

Taking withdrawal of the table as an alternative what would you propose the military do?

I think that withdrawing is the least expensive alternative. If you don't withdraw, you have to put a half million infantrymen in country for the next 50 years.

That worked quite well with Germany.

I'm sorry, but resettlement as you put it is equal to ethnic cleansing, and uprooting Iraqi families from their property, giving it to someone of a different sect and dumping them halfway across the country with nothing except what they could carry, with no immediate employment oppurtinities is just morally reprehensible.I put in there (or maybe I didn't) that there would have to be readily available jobs. Were they are now there really aren't any readily available jobs anyhow. Resettlement programs have worked wondrously for the British in the past. Who said anything about making them leave without letting them take any of there belongings?

Like I said before taking withdrawal off the table what would the good folks here at NSG do? I'm sincerely interested to know.

i think its pretty clear that it is only the unjust restriction on bombs and guns that is to blame here. if everyone in the market had been wired to explode, then everything would be peachy.

i think its pretty clear that it is only the unjust restriction on bombs and guns that is to blame here. if everyone in the market had been wired to explode, then everything would be peachy.

The whole country would be gone much quicker if we gave everyone a suicide bomb to wear, and set them to a hairtrigger.

Only takes one idiot, and the whole place goes...

I put in there (or maybe I didn't) that there would have to be readily available jobs. Were they are now there really aren't any readily available jobs anyhow. Resettlement programs have worked wondrously for the British in the past. Who said anything about making them leave without letting them take any of there belongings?

Like I said before taking withdrawal off the table what would the good folks here at NSG do? I'm sincerely interested to know.

Pre 2005 I would have said send in the Blue Helmets.

EDIT: Actually hell, I'll say send in the Blue Helmets right after the 2003 invasion.

I think it's fair to say that the insurgency is advanced enough that the coalition should be focused on draconian methods to curtail the violence.

I think it's fair to say that the insurgency is advanced enough that the coalition should be focused on draconian methods to curtail the violence.

Draconian went out with the British subjugation of the Boers, or the attempt by the Germans to subjugate the French Resistance.

Draconian went out with the British subjugation of the Boers, or the attempt by the Germans to subjugate the French Resistance.How's that?

How's that?

Maybe you haven't noticed the outrage over the naked homosexual human pyramids yet.

We couldn't move anyone if they didn't want to be moved - people would say we were committing genocide or worse, and that would stop that.

We can't be draconian because that means probably violating one or more international laws, and a few imagined ones as well. So we can't do that either.

The days when you could raze a city to the ground, push its inhabitants ahead of your army into concentration camps, and turn the area outside of the camps into a free fire zone are long gone.

I have a solution that will solve the problem of bombings and shootings in Baghdad! Just decalre the city a bomb-free zone and gun-free zone and give anyone caught with explosives or firearms a few years in prison. Similar laws have stopped school shootings in Colorado High Schools and Virginia college campuses.

Sure he provided security if you were a Sunni, but tell that to the 2,000,000 Iraqi Shia's who were murdered during his reign.

You do realise that directly and indirectly the US-led coalitions have killed a conservative estimate of 2,500,000 Iraqis since 1991? ;)

In the roll-call of Iraqi deaths, Saddam comes a poor second to the US/UK alliance.

Maybe you haven't noticed the outrage over the naked homosexual human pyramids yet.

We couldn't move anyone if they didn't want to be moved - people would say we were committing genocide or worse, and that would stop that.

We can't be draconian because that means probably violating one or more international laws, and a few imagined ones as well. So we can't do that either.

The days when you could raze a city to the ground, push its inhabitants ahead of your army into concentration camps, and turn the area outside of the camps into a free fire zone are long gone.That wasn't draconian that was a reprehensible crime committed by individuals with little to no accountability.

How wrong you are my friend. People can accuse us of genocide all day long, but in the end genocide is still:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

As long as none of this is taking place I see know problem.

Show me some international laws that prohibit the resettlement of people to safe and protected areas, and I'll show you the ones that prohibit the targeting of civilians like the terrorists in Iraq do every day.

I'm not proposing anything like the Ruskies did in Afghanistan. I don't want the USAF to bomb anything that could possibly aid the insurgency. I'm talking protected villages that could provide security and work for thousands of Iraqis.

You do realise that directly and indirectly the US-led coalitions have killed a conservative estimate of 2,500,000 Iraqis since 1991? ;)

Link please.

You do realise that directly and indirectly the US-led coalitions have killed a conservative estimate of 2,500,000 Iraqis since 1991? ;)

In the roll-call of Iraqi deaths, Saddam comes a poor second to the US/UK alliance.That doesn't count the 1 million Iranians that died as a result of the Iran-Iraq war as well as the half a million Iraqis who died in that war as well.

Conservative estimates would be in the range of 600,000.

Maybe you haven't noticed the outrage over the naked homosexual human pyramids yet.

We couldn't move anyone if they didn't want to be moved - people would say we were committing genocide or worse, and that would stop that.

We can't be draconian because that means probably violating one or more international laws, and a few imagined ones as well. So we can't do that either.

The days when you could raze a city to the ground, push its inhabitants ahead of your army into concentration camps, and turn the area outside of the camps into a free fire zone are long gone.

the fascist said wistfully

That doesn't count the 1 million Iranians that died as a result of the Iran-Iraq war as well as the half a million Iraqis who died in that war as well.

Noo, but given that we were bankrolling both sides during that war, we bear part of the blame too. Call it 50/50? 750,000 each to Saddam and the US/UK? ;)

Conservative estimates would be in the range of 600,000.

Actually:

1,500,000 Iraqis were killed between 1991-2003 as a result of the trade embargoes, and bombing, and some 655,000 have been killed because of the 2003 invasion. That's 2,155,000 before we include the un-numbered dead of Operation Desert Storm and Operation Desert Fox.

Those figures are the best availiable.

The worst day of violence since the surge, and the worst single attack since... february? Somewhere between 114 and 140 dead in a food market in Sadriya district, the same market where 130 were killed in february. An estimated 158 killed in total in Baghdad yesterday, while the day's death toll ended at nearly 230.

230 people killed... Not to mention the many wounded, of which we have no number.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6567329.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800799.html?hpid=topnews

I don't expect many to post in this thread, or, frankly, even read it. I just thought I should post it as a counterweight to the school-shooting threads. Just for the sake of perspective, not for comparison...

It was a particularily grim series, even for there.

Noo, but given that we were bankrolling both sides during that war, we bear part of the blame too. Call it 50/50? 750,000 each to Saddam and the US/UK? ;)



Actually:

1,500,000 Iraqis were killed between 1991-2003 as a result of the trade embargoes, and bombing, and some 655,000 have been killed because of the 2003 invasion. That's 2,155,000 before we include the un-numbered dead of Operation Desert Storm and Operation Desert Fox.

Those figures are the best available.I'm not sure what the British provided to Iraq in terms of military equipment, but the US provided arms amounted to something like less than %1 of total arms sales to Iraq. Maybe your placing an undue amount of the blame on the West it was Iraq's own neighbors that provided a majority of the aid. Although it is true that Iraq was the 3rd largest recipient of US aid during the 80s.

Best available or the ones that fit your agenda best? :rolleyes: The estimate of 1.5 million dead Iraqis was made by Husseins regime. No bias there I'm sure. It's extremely hard to estimate the deaths that occurred because of the trade embargo. Also it's difficult to know how many people died because the Iraqi infrastructure was devastated from more than a decade of war. Also the sanctions were UN sanctions which excluded food, medicine, and other humanitarian necessities. You said you were using conservative estimates I don't know maybe you just don't know the definition of conservative. Most would consider the Lancet Study (the death toll you cited for the current war) is erroneous at best. While I don't agree with the current administrations death toll estimation I would go with estimates by the IBCP (Iraqi Body Count Project), the UN, and the Iraqi Health ministry. None of there estimates are above 150,000 dead.

One can hardly imagine a surge of this small a size "working".

I am trying to figure out whether

a. it's a tactic to stall a withdrawal
b. it's supposed to help the current Prime Minister while we pound al-Sadr's militia
c. there's not a reason at all

If you had 1 million infantrymen, and did a surge that way, and went door to door and farm to farm in the entire country, searching for weapons, etc., and shot or captured those who resisted, you would still not really "settle" the place down.

Oh sure, for a bit. But people can reaquire weapons, and start up again when you've left.

Well, Sadrs militia are holidaying down south in Brit country until its over....