PDA

View Full Version : "Sectarian Violence" forces 65,000 Iraqis to flee homes...


Taco John
04-14-2006, 12:49 AM
How many people have to be put out of homes before we stop fugging around with terms like "Sectarian Violence?"



Iraq unrest forces 65,000 to flee
By Andrew North
BBC News, Baghdad

At least 65,000 Iraqis have fled their homes as a result of sectarian violence and intimidation, according to new figures from the Iraqi government.

And the rate at which Iraqis are being displaced is increasing.

Figures given to the BBC by the Ministry for Displacement and Migration show a doubling in the last two weeks of the number of Iraqis forced to move.

There has been a sharp rise in sectarian violence since the bombing of an important Shia shrine in February.

This triggered the current tensions between the country's majority Shia Muslims and minority Sunni Muslims, and hundreds of people have since been killed.


Intimidation

Reports of people leaving their homes because of violence or intimidation, or simply because they no longer feel safe, are becoming more and more common.

Some of the intimidation is being carried out by mobile phone.

People have been receiving threatening text messages and gruesome videos filmed on mobile phone cameras.

In one, a Sunni Iraqi man who entered a mainly Shia neighbourhood of Baghdad is seen being beaten and killed by men in black clothes.

The video was then sent out with the warning that this is what would happen to any other Sunni who came to the area.

Makeshift camps

The Iraqi Ministry for Displacement and Migration told the BBC almost 11,000 families had left their homes - equivalent to about 65,000, based on the average Iraqi family size.

Much of this displacement is taking place in and around Baghdad where the violence has been worst, with many people moving in with relatives or friends.

The Red Crescent is providing food, water, blankets, and kerosene to 5,000 families.

Every day the number is going up," Dr Maazen Saloom, a senior official with the Iraqi Red Crescent, told the BBC. "We are trying to get more funds to help these people."

Some displaced people are living in makeshift camps, others are living with relatives or friends, or have moved into ruined buildings or other structures.

Some displaced Iraqis, the Red Crescent says, are hesitant to move to camps, concerned that the camps will become the target of attacks.

Hundreds of Sunnis from the overwhelmingly Shia south, have been heading north - many going to Sunni areas in and around Falluja, west of Baghdad.

The United Nations still has only a limited presence inside Iraq but officials in neighbouring Jordan say they are trying to secure emergency funds because of expectations this internal refugee problem will grow.

The UN-affiliated International Organisation for Migration (IOM) has also been watching the situation closely.

Its latest figures are lower that the Iraqi government's, with reports that about 6,500 families or about 40,000 individuals have fled their homes since the attack on the Samarra shrine.

But the IOM does not dispute the Iraqi government figures. It says the IOM reports do not include estimates for the numbers sheltering with family or friends.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4905770.stm

Ugly Duck
04-14-2006, 12:57 AM
Sectarian violence? Refugees? I thought this was supposed to be a struggle between a government and some ragtags that hate democracy. Are we fighting insurgents, or are we caught up in a civil war between rival sects of Islam?

the Talking Can
04-14-2006, 05:11 AM
I blame the media, and Bill Clinton, and Hollywood.

Chief Henry
04-14-2006, 08:19 AM
I blame the media, and Bill Clinton, and Hollywood.



So do I.

HC_Chief
04-14-2006, 08:49 AM
Methinks TJ doesn't understand the word "sectarian". Here's some help: http://www.dictionary.com

patteeu
04-14-2006, 09:19 AM
Is this about some need to call this a "civil war?" OK, let's call it a civil war. In some ways, it's been a civil war ever since sovereignty was returned to the Iraqi people. What difference does it make what we call it? We still need to finish the job of helping the Iraqis to establish their new government.

HC_Chief
04-14-2006, 09:25 AM
Is this about some need to call this a "civil war?" OK, let's call it a civil war. In some ways, it's been a civil war ever since sovereignty was returned to the Iraqi people. What difference does it make what we call it? We still need to finish the job of helping the Iraqis to establish their new government.

Sectarian tension was there long before we ousted Saddam. Hell, it was there before Saddam.

Some people *cough*Kerry liberals*cough* want to cut & run. They obviously don't believe that a move such as that would be horrific; leading to utter anarchy with rippling affects not only in the region, but with dire global economic consequences. Their perogative, I suppose.... I'm just glad most reasonable people (read: MOST PEOPLE) think it's a really, really, really stupid f*cking idea.

stevieray
04-14-2006, 09:42 AM
Sectarian tension was there long before we ousted Saddam. Hell, it was there before Saddam.

Some people *cough*Kerry liberals*cough* want to cut & run. They obviously don't believe that a move such as that would be horrific; leading to utter anarchy with rippling affects not only in the region, but with dire global economic consequences. Their perogative, I suppose.... I'm just glad most reasonable people (read: MOST PEOPLE) think it's a really, really, really stupid f*cking idea.

Great post. after all those years of terror and totrure, it's ludicrous to think that the Iraqi people would be able to fend for themselves in a couple of years.

jiveturkey
04-14-2006, 10:15 AM
Great post. after all those years of terror and totrure, it's ludicrous to think that the Iraqi people would be able to fend for themselves in a couple of years.
Projected cost for the war probably lead a lot of people to think that it would just be a couple of years.

Taco John
04-14-2006, 04:09 PM
Is this about some need to call this a "civil war?" OK, let's call it a civil war.



Ok. It's a deal.

the Talking Can
04-14-2006, 04:55 PM
Great post. after all those years of terror and totrure, it's ludicrous to think that the Iraqi people would be able to fend for themselves in a couple of years.

then you agree that Bush was a gigantic dumb ass for assuming EXACTLY that....

the Talking Can
04-14-2006, 04:56 PM
I like how we went from "Mission Accomplished" to "of course it is a civil war, so what...I'm not dying"...and still no one is responsible...oh wait, the media...

patteeu
04-14-2006, 05:25 PM
Ok. It's a deal.

Done. It's a civil war. Now lets help the sovereign government win it.

Logical
04-14-2006, 05:31 PM
Is this about some need to call this a "civil war?" OK, let's call it a civil war. In some ways, it's been a civil war ever since sovereignty was returned to the Iraqi people. What difference does it make what we call it? We still need to finish the job of helping the Iraqis to establish their new government.

No, we need to get the hell out of the way and let them establish what they want. Get our soldiers out of harms way, they did their job they got rid of Saddam and his government.

jiveturkey
04-14-2006, 05:37 PM
Done. It's a civil war. Now lets help the sovereign government win it.
Which side do we want to win??? :hmmm:

patteeu
04-14-2006, 05:39 PM
No, we need to get the hell out of the way and let them establish what they want. Get our soldiers out of harms way, they did their job they got rid of Saddam and his government.

We should leave only if we are defeated. We're winning right now.

patteeu
04-14-2006, 05:40 PM
Which side do we want to win??? :hmmm:

Done. It's a civil war. Now lets help the sovereign government win it.

jiveturkey
04-14-2006, 05:41 PM
Touche' patteeu :)

Logical
04-14-2006, 05:44 PM
We should leave only if we are defeated. We're winning right now.ROFL We are not winning anything, all we are doing is wasting billions weekly and losing approximately 50 lives every month.

You see when you win, you take your prize and enjoy it and the effort is over. By no means are we winning.

All you can say is that we have not lost yet, but we are losing billions and about 50 people a month..

CHIEF4EVER
04-14-2006, 05:55 PM
ROFL We are not winning anything, all we are doing is wasting billions weekly and losing approximately 50 lives every month.

You see when you win, you take your prize and enjoy it and the effort is over. By no means are we winning.

All you can say is that we have not lost yet, but we are losing billions and about 50 people a month..

Let's see....2 Iraqi votes with over 80% turnout in spite of threats by insurgents. Check. Constitution ratified. Check. Over 250,000 Iraqi Army and Police trained and slowly but surely taking over the bulk of the work against the insurgents. Check. Killed a buttload of terrorists on soil OTHER THAN US soil. Check. Yup, you must be right Jim....a total waste of time.:p

patteeu
04-14-2006, 05:58 PM
ROFL We are not winning anything, all we are doing is wasting billions weekly and losing approximately 50 lives every month.

You see when you win, you take your prize and enjoy it and the effort is over. By no means are we winning.

All you can say is that we have not lost yet, but we are losing billions and about 50 people a month..

And if we follow your course, all we'll be able to say is that we did lose. The number of US casualties has dropped significantly in recent months.

go bowe
04-14-2006, 06:05 PM
And if we follow your course, all we'll be able to say is that we did lose. The number of US casualties has dropped significantly in recent months.i wonder how much of that drop has been due to better countermeasures against ied's or due to more iraqi troops taking the "lead" with fewer of our troops being exposed to enemy fire and ied's...

patteeu
04-14-2006, 06:09 PM
i wonder how much of that drop has been due to better countermeasures against ied's or due to more iraqi troops taking the "lead" with fewer of our troops being exposed to enemy fire and ied's...

I'm guessing a lot of it has to do with the latter, but that's just a guess.

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 06:34 PM
Great post. after all those years of terror and totrure, it's ludicrous to think that the Iraqi people would be able to fend for themselves in a couple of years.

Yes, it's nuts to assume a terrorized society like Iraq, Pre-WW2 Japan, or Nazi Germany should be able to fend for themselves nearly 3 years after the end of "major combat operations". Incidentally, it took less than 4 years to establish the extremely solid democracy that is the FRG, and the Japanese Govt. was (while still an occupied nation until 1951) established in 1946 and stable by 1947, when a massive draw-down of US and Commonwealth forces was begun.

Of course, both those occupations had the advantage of being planned by people that actually took the society being occupied into consideration, as opposed to the slap-dash "make it up as we go along" approach that worked so well in Iraq. :rolleyes:

How many US soldiers were lost in combat actions in the post-war occupation of Germany and Japan? Less than 100 in each nation, and none after 1946.
(Source: On Every Front by Thomas Paterson, and documents obtained from the "B" file at the Truman Library. My Apologies for my inability to provide the specific document titles at this particular moment)

What a difference actually realistically planning for occupation and post war reconstruction makes. Does anyone actually believe Iraq will be anywhere near the level of stability of post-war Japan or Germany in 1949 by 2008? If you want to solely blame Iran, keep in mind the Soviet Union was doing all it could to undermine the postwar governments in the occupied nations following WW2.

Adept Havelock
04-14-2006, 06:39 PM
And if we follow your course, all we'll be able to say is that we did lose. The number of US casualties has dropped significantly in recent months.

How did we lose? Saddam Hussien is no longer in power. A democratically elected government is ruling Iraq. It's time for them to man up and take responsibility for themselves.

I have no problem with the US providing funding, weapons, training, military and intelligence advisors, and technical support. However, it's time for the US to say it's time to spend your own blood to defend your freedom. We have done our part. JMO.

Taco John
04-15-2006, 12:09 PM
Done. It's a civil war. Now lets help the sovereign government win it.


So it's a civil war, us vs. the people that live in the country? ROFL


This is great!

jettio
04-15-2006, 08:40 PM
Is this about some need to call this a "civil war?" OK, let's call it a civil war. In some ways, it's been a civil war ever since sovereignty was returned to the Iraqi people. What difference does it make what we call it? We still need to finish the job of helping the Iraqis to establish their new government.

Once Iraq trains enough braindead apologists that ratify every act of incompetence by their leaders, they will have their government.

I say patteeu could go over there and train up that cohort and then Utopia on the Tigris will be born.

stevieray
04-15-2006, 09:16 PM
Yes, it's nuts to assume a terrorized society like Iraq, Pre-WW2 Japan, or Nazi Germany should be able to fend for themselves nearly 3 years after the end of "major combat operations". Incidentally, it took less than 4 years to establish the extremely solid democracy that is the FRG, and the Japanese Govt. was (while still an occupied nation until 1951) established in 1946 and stable by 1947, when a massive draw-down of US and Commonwealth forces was begun.

Of course, both those occupations had the advantage of being planned by people that actually took the society being occupied into consideration, as opposed to the slap-dash "make it up as we go along" approach that worked so well in Iraq. :rolleyes:

How many US soldiers were lost in combat actions in the post-war occupation of Germany and Japan? Less than 100 in each nation, and none after 1946.
(Source: On Every Front by Thomas Paterson, and documents obtained from the "B" file at the Truman Library. My Apologies for my inability to provide the specific document titles at this particular moment)

What a difference actually realistically planning for occupation and post war reconstruction makes. Does anyone actually believe Iraq will be anywhere near the level of stability of post-war Japan or Germany in 1949 by 2008? If you want to solely blame Iran, keep in mind the Soviet Union was doing all it could to undermine the postwar governments in the occupied nations following WW2.

by that logic, two children who have been abused for years will recover almost identically.

Aren't some African Americans still haunted by slavery?

I wonder how many chickenshit attacks in country were attempted against American troops in Japan and Germany? Or if the attacks were against the new government. We established bases and protected Europe for four decades after WW2. We still have troops on the DMZ in Korea.

Freedom isn't given, it's won.

no offense, but you sound like Kerry's losing campaign speech.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 09:28 PM
by that logic, two children who have been abused for years will recover almost identically.

That might be true if there was logic to be found in your statement. Nation-states are not individuals. Nor are they governed by the same behaviors or pathologies(excepting the case of operating absolute dictatorships where one person is essentially the state). Your sole point was that a terrorized society would need a longer time to recover than had passed. I provided two solid historical examples which contradicted this. Would you like some cheese with that whine? I heartily recommend the Roquefort. It's excellent.

Aren't some African Americans still haunted by slavery?

I would seriously doubt it. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Knauss">oldest person in the history of the United States</a>, who died in 1999, was born in 1880, 15 years after slavery was abolished. I'm sure some claim they are still haunted by it, though. Perhaps it's that pesky past life issue. Damn you, Shirley Maclaine! Or perhaps it's truama manifesting itself through Jung's "Collective Unconcious"? Now if you are bringing up the fact that slavery had long term socio-economic implications for the African-Americans in our society, that's a completely different issue than an individual being "haunted" by it. I'm inclined to think it's the latter you are alluding to, considering your rather absurd initial example of an abused child. It's only an interpretation of a vague statement, so I admit my interpretation could be mistaken.


I wonder how many chickenshit attacks in country were attempted against American troops in Japan and Germany? Or if the attacks were against the new government. We established bases and protected Europe for four decades after WW2. We still have troops on the DMZ in Korea.
None of which alters the fact that in two competently managed occupations, our combined fatalities in both nations were less than 200, with none after a year and a half of occupation. Perhaps a competently planned and executed occupation, combined with a serious effort at nation-building provides fewer excuses for people to attack their occupiers?


Freedom isn't given, it's won.
Bumper-sticker political science, but none the less true for that. We've done our part in handing the Iraqi's the opportunity by removing Saddam Hussien and providing security for democratic elections. I say let's provide all the funding, weapons, training, technical advice, intelligence, and military advisors they could possibly want. As for the actual fighting, let them maintain, or to use your word, win it, else it will be meaningless to them. Thank you for helping me make my case. :D

no offense, but you sound like Kerry's losing campaign speech.
No offense, but don't you get tired of being reduced to pathetic soundbites like that?

stevieray
04-15-2006, 10:17 PM
That might be true if there was logic to be found in your statement. Nation-states are not individuals. Nor are they governed by the same behaviors or pathologies. Your sole point was that a terrorized society would need a longer time to recover than had passed. I provided two solid historical examples which contradicted this. Would you like some cheese with that whine? I heartily reccomend the Roquefort.

I would seriously doubt it. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Knauss">oldest person in the history of the United States</a>, who died in 1999, was born in 1880, 15 years after slavery was abolished. I'm sure some claim they are still haunted by it, though. Perhaps it's that pesky past life issue. Damn you, Shirley Maclaine! Or perhaps it's truama manifesting itself through Jung's "Collective Unconcious"? Now if you are bringing up the fact that slavery had long term socio-economic implications for the African-Americans in our society, that's a completely different issue than an individual being "haunted" by it. I'm inclined to think it's the latter you are alluding to, considering your rather absurd initial example of an abused child. It's only an interpretation of a vague statement, so I admit my interpretation could be mistaken.


None of which alters the fact that in two competently managed occupations, our combined fatalities in both nations were less than 200, with none after a year and a half of occupation. Perhaps a competently planned and executed occupation, combined with a serious effort at nation-building provides fewer excuses for people to attack their occupiers?


Bumper-sticker political science, but none the less true for that. We've done our part in handing the Iraqi's the opportunity by removing Saddam Hussien and providing security for democratic elections. I say let's provide all the funding, weapons, training, technical advice, intelligence, and military advisors they could possibly want. As for the actual fighting, let them maintain, or to use your word, win it, else it will be meaningless to them. Thank you for helping me make my case. :D

No offense, but don't you get tired of being reduced to pathetic soundbites like that?

You're entitled to your opinion.

Ugly Duck
04-16-2006, 01:52 AM
It's a civil war. Now lets help the sovereign government win it.Why? The sovereign government is the America-hating, Iran-loving Islamic Revolution patterned after the iceholes that took our men hostage back in Carter time. They hate our friggin guts and cut the heads off of people in the dead of night. Why should we take sides with them in this religious butcher-fest? All of a sudden we are Allah-Akbar Shiites supporting Mohhamed's work of slaughtering non-believeing Sunnis? We've shoved democracy down their throats, and they put together Saddam-style death squads wearing the uniforms we gave them. At least the Kurds like us.... we should pal up with them instead of with Badr & Sadr & their America-hating minions.

CHIEF4EVER
04-16-2006, 03:07 AM
None of which alters the fact that in two competently managed occupations, our combined fatalities in both nations were less than 200, with none after a year and a half of occupation. Perhaps a competently planned and executed occupation, combined with a serious effort at nation-building provides fewer excuses for people to attack their occupiers?

C'mon Adept. You can't even remotely compare the two cases. The occupation of Germany and Japan were as different from the occupation of Iraq as apples are from oranges. Germany was completely devastated by long years of war and the loss of not only the vast majority of their menfolk but also half of their prewar territory. Japan just lost a long war in which they had been nuked twice. Neither had the motivation to form ANY sort of insurgency. Iraq, on the other hand, is far from devastated or beaten down. The war was short and removed someone who oppressed them for decades. The populace, for the most part, support the creation of a valid democracy. The problem lies with an insurgency of a radical minority. Any insurgency takes time to eradicate and requires the support of the populace (see British success in Malaya). The support of the populace is there and intensifies every time the wack job insurgents kill or maim innocents. Sooner or later the outrage against the insurgent attacks on civilians is going to boil over. Time is our ally at this point.

patteeu
04-16-2006, 12:53 PM
Why? The sovereign government is the America-hating, Iran-loving Islamic Revolution patterned after the iceholes that took our men hostage back in Carter time. They hate our friggin guts and cut the heads off of people in the dead of night. Why should we take sides with them in this religious butcher-fest? All of a sudden we are Allah-Akbar Shiites supporting Mohhamed's work of slaughtering non-believeing Sunnis? We've shoved democracy down their throats, and they put together Saddam-style death squads wearing the uniforms we gave them. At least the Kurds like us.... we should pal up with them instead of with Badr & Sadr & their America-hating minions.

The Kurds are a part of the sovereign government. Until they give up on it, I think I'm safe ignoring the fact that you've already done so.

patteeu
04-16-2006, 12:55 PM
Time is our ally at this point.

Exactly. Wiith the exception of domestic opinion driven by those who have an interest in US failure, of course.

Ugly Duck
04-16-2006, 02:12 PM
The Kurds are a part of the sovereign government. Until they give up on it, I think I'm safe ignoring the fact that you've already done so.I reckon the reality is somewhere in between our two positions. Lookit who the democratic process selected as Prime Minister. The Kurds refuse to accept the appointment and will not convene parliment until the leader of the democracy steps down. They haven't "given up" on the government, they just don't wanna abide by majority rule in the democracy.

go bowe
04-17-2006, 02:17 AM
I reckon the reality is somewhere in between our two positions. Lookit who the democratic process selected as Prime Minister. The Kurds refuse to accept the appointment and will not convene parliment until the leader of the democracy steps down. They haven't "given up" on the government, they just don't wanna abide by majority rule in the democracy.gee, mr. duck sir...

isn't the new iraqi state a federation, where each of the three sides is "equal" under the constitution, or something like that?

the concept of majority rule has its limits...

btw, do you have something against the kurds?

haven't they been our strongest allies in iraq?

of course, if they had more oil, we'd be all over kurdistan too, wouldn't we?

jAZ
04-17-2006, 02:45 AM
Exactly. Wiith the exception of domestic opinion driven by those who have an interest in US failure, of course.
You've really turned into a rotten piece of crap, haven't you? Everything you say lately is an framed using the most divisive, insulting and blindly partisan language.

Seriously, what happened to you?

stevieray
04-17-2006, 10:36 AM
You've really turned into a rotten piece of crap, haven't you? Everything you say lately is an framed using the most divisive, insulting and blindly partisan language.

Seriously, what happened to you?

funny, I thought you were writing an autobiography.

Taco John
04-17-2006, 11:06 AM
You've really turned into a rotten piece of crap, haven't you? Everything you say lately is an framed using the most divisive, insulting and blindly partisan language.

Seriously, what happened to you?



Fear. It's a powerful motivator.

Ugly Duck
04-17-2006, 11:30 AM
btw, do you have something against the kurds?Not at all! They're my fav Iraqis. I think their rejection of our democracy in Iraq is an encouraging sign. The way we had things set up, because Shiites are the majority, they ended up with Al Sadr's pick as Prime Minister. That put us in the untenable position of using our forces to protect Iran's interests in Iraq. The Kurds are set to pull the rug out from under the neocon model of democracy in Iraq by forcing the duly appointed Prime Minister to step down. I think that is doggone good - go Kurds! We wanted good news from Iraq? Well here it is!

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-17-2006, 11:37 AM
You've really turned into a rotten piece of crap, haven't you? Everything you say lately is an framed using the most divisive, insulting and blindly partisan language.

Seriously, what happened to you?

I made the same assertion about him a few days ago and he laughed off the claim that he was a blind ideologue.

Radar Chief
04-17-2006, 11:40 AM
funny, I thought you were writing an autobiography.

Heh, I know. I thought nearly the same thing.
I started to create a “look who’s talk’n” or “pot meet kettle” post but then thought that if anyone’s gonna know a “rotten piece of crap” use’n “the most divisive, insulting and blindly partisan language” it’d be jAZ. So, I decided to defer judgment to the expert. ;)

patteeu
04-17-2006, 12:36 PM
I reckon the reality is somewhere in between our two positions. Lookit who the democratic process selected as Prime Minister. The Kurds refuse to accept the appointment and will not convene parliment until the leader of the democracy steps down. They haven't "given up" on the government, they just don't wanna abide by majority rule in the democracy.

Your analysis is wrong.

The elections elected a parliment. The Constitution dictates that the prime minister must be approved by a certain percentage of the parliment. The party that won the most seats in the parliment doesn't have enough seats to pick the prime minister without getting buy-in from some of the other parties. That's what's going on now. The party that won the most seats elected a prime minister candidate (by a narrow margin), but if they can't get the buy-in they need, their candidate goes nowhere. The Kurds, if they wanted to, could propose their own candidate for Prime Minister and that guy would be just as entitled to the job as al-Jaafari.

patteeu
04-17-2006, 12:38 PM
You've really turned into a rotten piece of crap, haven't you? Everything you say lately is an framed using the most divisive, insulting and blindly partisan language.

Seriously, what happened to you?

So which are you, one of the driven or one of the drivers?

go bowe
04-17-2006, 02:32 PM
ok, jaz...

you're taking hyperbole to a whole new level...

this is even beyond bush-baiting vitriol...

what's the deal, old boy?

Logical
04-17-2006, 04:22 PM
Exactly. Wiith the exception of domestic opinion driven by those who have an interest in US failure, of course.

Those interested in continuing this fiasco are the ones interested in driving US failure. Those wishing to save lives and lower the dollars wasted on Iraq are the ones interested in US success. We met our goal, we got rid of Saddam ensured there were no WMDs and now if we would just leave we could consider it a success, instead of the failure we are turning it into.

go bowe
04-17-2006, 05:23 PM
Those interested in continuing this fiasco are the ones interested in driving US failure. Those wishing to save lives and lower the dollars wasted on Iraq are the ones interested in US success. We met our goal, we got rid of Saddam ensured there were no WMDs and now if we would just leave we could consider it a success, instead of the failure we are turning it into.you know, when you put it that way, it does make you (me) think... :harumph: :harumph: :harumph:

Earthling
04-17-2006, 06:40 PM
Those interested in continuing this fiasco are the ones interested in driving US failure. Those wishing to save lives and lower the dollars wasted on Iraq are the ones interested in US success. We met our goal, we got rid of Saddam ensured there were no WMDs and now if we would just leave we could consider it a success, instead of the failure we are turning it into.

:bravo:

unlurking
04-17-2006, 07:48 PM
Those interested in continuing this fiasco are the ones interested in driving US failure. Those wishing to save lives and lower the dollars wasted on Iraq are the ones interested in US success. We met our goal, we got rid of Saddam ensured there were no WMDs and now if we would just leave we could consider it a success, instead of the failure we are turning it into.
The problem with that is if we leave now, we just handed the country over to Iran.

banyon
04-17-2006, 08:08 PM
The problem with that is if we leave now, we just handed the country over to Iran.

But who could have possibly foreseen that? :shrug:

unlurking
04-17-2006, 08:26 PM
But who could have possibly foreseen that? :shrug:
Agreed, we can blame this mistake on the current administration, but we still can't leave now without making things worse.

patteeu
04-17-2006, 09:56 PM
Those interested in continuing this fiasco are the ones interested in driving US failure. Those wishing to save lives and lower the dollars wasted on Iraq are the ones interested in US success. We met our goal, we got rid of Saddam ensured there were no WMDs and now if we would just leave we could consider it a success, instead of the failure we are turning it into.

Obviously we have a profound disagreement on this. Leaving now and pretending that our only interests were in ousting Saddam and clearing the field of WMDs would mean that the blood and treasure we've expended will have been largely wasted if Iraq becomes a haven for al Qaeda or other radical islamists.

Ugly Duck
04-18-2006, 01:27 AM
Your analysis is wrong.

The elections elected a parliment. The Constitution dictates that the prime minister must be approved by a certain percentage of the parliment. The party that won the most seats in the parliment doesn't have enough seats to pick the prime minister without getting buy-in from some of the other parties. That's what's going on now. The party that won the most seats elected a prime minister candidate (by a narrow margin), but if they can't get the buy-in they need, their candidate goes nowhere. The Kurds, if they wanted to, could propose their own candidate for Prime Minister and that guy would be just as entitled to the job as al-Jaafari.Thank you once again for your fine research, it all checks out (except that the process has been derailed before any "buy-ins" could occur).

al-Jerkfari is the prime minister of the transitional government. He got in by one vote cuz al-Sadr told all of his guys to vote for him. The Shiite members hold the biggest hammer cuz they have more members (like in a democracy). I respect the Kurds for refusing to go along with the majority cuz I think al-Sadr & the Islamic Revolution guyz are a buncha America-hating a-holes. Parliment was postponed today cuz the Kurds say they would have refused to stamp the guy in for another term (not "buying-in the candidate"). Good. Maybe they shudda let the democracy thing work and officially refuse to support him in session like the constitution says. Maybe they shouldn't have stopped the planned democratic process by postponing parliment and let your concise analysis of the process play out instead. The Kurds don't have a chance of nominating a candidate with anywhere near the support that al-Jerkfari has. But at least they managed to halt the process in an attempt to force the majority in another direction. A frozen, stalemated, derailed process is better than one that keeps the prime minister in office any longer. He may be good for Iran and for the Shiite majority in Iraq, but he's bad for the USA. If the Kurds have managed to throw a wrench in the works, I say thats better than letting the process we put together play out. When the majority in a democracy are USA-hating jerks, I don't mind much when the democratic process gets derailed. Go Kurds.

patteeu
04-18-2006, 09:25 AM
Those interested in continuing this fiasco are the ones interested in driving US failure. Those wishing to save lives and lower the dollars wasted on Iraq are the ones interested in US success. We met our goal, we got rid of Saddam ensured there were no WMDs and now if we would just leave we could consider it a success, instead of the failure we are turning it into.

Obviously we have a profound disagreement on this.

But apparently we aren't the only ones who disagree. Here's another guy's take on it:

That is what I have been saying for months, it is time to minimize our losses. To much has already been lost on this pit with no forseeable return benefit.

So one of our Vlads says we've already won and the other says we've already lost. I'd love to see the two of you get together for a 1v1 debate. ROFL

patteeu
04-18-2006, 01:29 PM
Fear. It's a powerful motivator.

That's the truth. It seems to be driving you over the edge.

My fear of the Bush government is a fear for the future of America.

I'm more afraid of the US Government than I am of Al Queda.

I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists than take my chances with the government. One of them I'm not afraid of in the least. The other can pull my number at any time.

Don't be afraid, Taco.

go bowe
04-18-2006, 01:33 PM
shush, you blind ideologue...