The killing a month ago of al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi prompted some momentary and much-needed hope for Iraq’s future, but that optimism is fast fading in light of a renewed wave of bloody sectarian violence.
Some 6,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in violence in May and June, according to a new United Nations report — about 4,500 of them in Baghdad alone. That’s the highest rate of civilian deaths since the fall of Baghdad.
The Iraqi government’s recently adopted strategy of locking down and securing Baghdad seems to be failing, raising the specter of all-out civil war. Is America’s role to keep the warring sides apart? And as the spiking violence shows, is that even possible?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
81 Comments
It is being reported that in mixed-ethnic neighborhoods in Baghdad, Sunni gangs in Sunni-predominant zones are terrorizing Shiites, and Shiite gangs in Shiite-predominant zones are terrorizing Sunnis, so that people are fleeing and creating single-ethnicity enclaves to protect themselves from their fellow Iraqi citizens. So much for a multi-ethnic democracy. What hath this administration wrought?
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
BushdaBeast was warned that this would happen. Instead he listened to the likes of “Curveball” and Ahmed Chalabi.
At this time, none of our choices are good ones.
1) withdraw our troops, and say “good luck with your civil war, Iraq”;
2) keep our troops there, try to figure out some way to reduce the sectarian violence — what has been tried so far, has not worked;
3) split Iraq up into three states, Kurdish, Sunni, and Shi’ite. This option has the disadvantages of encouraging Turkey to invade Kurdish Iraq, and allowing Iran greater influence over the Shi’ite population. Also, how would the oil wealth be split up? What process could be adopted that would be satisfactory for all?
If there are other choices, I am not seeing them. It seems like the real question now is, which of these bad alternatives is the least bad?
One further thing, it would seem that the choice of “staying the course” – with no change is not only ineffectual, it is immoral in terms of putting our troops in harm’s way with no plan or defined mission.
Notice how quiet it is from the tighty-righties?
They have to wait until Rush and Sean tell them what to think.
Remember, it’s outlander and ID who keep saying that liberals don’t care about facts.
Riddle me this, wing-nuts, how do explain that we’ve been in Iraq since March 2003 and civilian war deaths are going UP not down?
What part of that simple FACT is this leftist not understanding?
I’d like to hear it.
Anybody remember Colin Powell and the “Pottery Barn” rule?
YOU know, the idea that if bush “broke” Iraq, he would own it?Friends? Iraq is broke. It aint just broke. It’s probably past fixing.
Now unfortunately, bush only “owns” it for another 2 years or so. The rest of us, the military, the Iraqis , the mideast…….WE all get to eat the left overs of the shit sandwich that bush made. And it’s lookin’ like a pretty big meal.
Now we can’t send the check. He won’t take the credit. But his party can sure as hell pay the bill.
Let’s make sure they do that.
Boy, we sure won the hearts and minds of the Iraqui civilians…
I still think we had no business whatsoever going to Iraq in the first place. Putting our military men and women in harm’s way (needlessly) is something I just can’t condone.
If we pull out, then the whole shaky cart threatens to upset…well, news flash, that entire area has been unstable since the Stone Age. If they wanna kill each other, so be it- just let us get our people the hell out of there first.
(Oh yeah- we can’t leave…cuz…well…we kinda started it and we’d look st00pid.)
“Riddle me this, wing-nuts, how do explain that we’ve been in Iraq since March 2003 and civilian war deaths are going UP not down?”
Just wondering, Trumad (or whatever name you choose today), who it is that are killing the civilians? Now, why are they doing it? Congratulations, you have just answered your own question.
Condi’s going to meet with The HOuse of Saud to figure out what to do about the Israeli war on Lebanon.If you attack Iraq for what Saudi’s did, why wouldn’t you conduct talks with the Saudies for what Israel and Lebanon are doing?
Outlander,I have a different question. Should our troops be killed for being in the middle of a sectarian civil war in Iraq? How would this serve U.S. foreign policy interests?
And, I am assuming you are not going to tell me that we are fighting the terrorists there instead of in our streets. Even Rumsfeld, not long ago, was wondering on how to find a “metric” for progress in Iraq.
I don’t know what the answer for this major problem is, as I say above. I think that what is left is chosing among nearly equal bad alternatives – a situation that cognitive scientists called “classic conflict”.
Outlander–
Whoa, hold on there, big boy.
“who it is that are killing the civilians? Now, why are they doing it?”
Hell, I don’t know. All I know is we went in, and going on 200,000 Iraqis are dead. Okay, you won’t agree with that number, let’s say 75,000 and growing, whatever.
You tell me who’s doing it and why? And you tell me how we didn’t start this civil war and how we’re going to stop it, if we haven’t stopped it already and it’s in fact getting worse.
I look forward to your explanation.
The sectarian violence in Iraq is one of the reasons Saddam was such a ruthless dictator. Does anyone see the picture?
Who is killing whom? Easy. If you can read, that is.
So what ARE Lush, O’Leilly, and Haventenee saying today? Anybody listening?
We are saying what we always say:
Iraq is still better off without Saddam
We will eventually find some WMDs
Al Queda = Iraq
Bin Laden and Saddam = BFF
Saudis are our friends, the 9/11 hijackers were an anomaly, Iraq was always the real threat
Islam, Fascism and Iraq – repeat as often as necessary
Why do liberals hate America?
Clinton was worse
TruMad,”Notice how quiet it is from the tighty-righties?”
Of course they’re quiet. They’re happy. Not only do they get to see a lot of people suffer and die (one of their favorite pasttimes), But they well may be witnessing the start of End Times.
Talk about conservative heaven!
Not only was Clinton worse, it’s HIS FAULT!
Thanks for catching me up, Rush.
XXX and everyone else,
The lack or absense of posting here doesn’t prove or make the crap you guys love to spew at each other any more true or accurate.
If you all want to have an orgy in your basement and tell each other love poems, please don’t assume that my lack of participation is an indication of my not being able to say what you are doing is wrong, sick, perverted…etc…
Now that I have gotten past all that…
I can tell you what talk radio, Fox, and the right are saying. War. War is their new favorite war er word. Now the “war on terror” is not enough. FOX has pundit after shill er anchor speucaluating whether this is World War III or WarWorld War IV. Iraq? What’s Iraq? THEIR topic is Israel. You know, maybe because no Americans are getting killed there……yet. But they are beating their chests…. er…. gums…..dammmit DRUMS for Americans to get into World War III or IV!
Happy to help. We spent very little time on Iraq this week, so many other stories about the best president ever were available to fill our airtime.
1. President Bush taught those uppity black people at the NAACP who is boss this week, maybe some of them will learn to not be so stupid and accept the GOP as their new overlords
2. The German leader Merkel wants Bush so bad. Recoiling in horror from an innocent backrub is the type of reaction that real men like Bush know is a sign of his undeniable sex appeal. Bush is a man’s man that knows when a woman says no she really means yes.
3. Bush made the world safe for all embryos this week. GOP leaders to discuss allowing the destruction of all embryos that show a propensity to become Latino, liberal or gay later this month. No worries, proposed legislation will not weaken the protections for white, Christian, conservative embryos.
Islamic Facisim is the greatest threat in our world today.
I am reading Richard Clarke’s new book ” The Scorpion’s gate”. Above the title is the phrase “Sometimes you can tell more truth through fiction”.
It really is amazing how close he has come in the book to the reality today. Even the point that is veiled in the repeated reference to the Saudis. Which many have predicted the royal family will be over thrown and a new Fundamental state will be formed. The Shiites will gain control of Iraq after we leave and be a lined with Iran so instead of one nation against the U.S. there would then be three.
But I am finding interesting to read the repeated reference to the Saudis here, perhaps what Clarke has alluded to so far in his book is closer to the truth about who is behind 9-11 then we understand.
“Islamic Facisim is the greatest threat in our world today”
The greatest threat to American democracy is the Republican Party and the willingly blind and ignorant simpletons who pull the lever for their ‘team’ every time, regardless of facts and reality.
“Islamic fascism is the greatest threat in our world today”
Joe I was gonna ring the bell on ya. But I cannot fault you for buying the bogey man lie that bush and his propoganda ministry have been spoon feeding you and everyone else. So if I ring the bell on you I have to ring it on the dwindling number of similarly deluded people. I ALMOST have enough bells to do that.
Deal is Joe? Most of us aint taking that pablum anymore. We turned up our nose and said”bleah!”
Joe? Your post WAS short. Let me shorten it for you further. You should just said “Baaa–aaaaa”
Hamas and Hizbollah were born under Israeli occupation. They did not exist before that.
See, Joe has been listening. Islamic Fascism is one of our most popular guests on the segment we call boogeyman of the day.
Never mind that neither we nor our listeners know much about Islam and cannot even define fascism.
Joe, can you tell the class what fascism is? Can you also explain what a religion and a political system have in common. Or is Islamo-Fascism just a cool sounding scare tactic?
OK JR, if Islamic fascism is not the biggest threat in the world today what would you say is? Bush administration? Ann Coulter?
Christo-Fasicsm in the form of the neocon government in charge of the US is the most dangerous force in the world right now. How many innocent people have Bush & Co killed so far in Iraq? How many more will they kill spreading freedom and democracy?
100,000?200,000?
Musso: The Islamo Fascists are doing the killing of the innocents in Iraq. Pay attention.
Does anyone know where TrueBlue/LeftHook/ProudLib/Galahad is?
DD: In the middle of factions is not a good place to be. But I do not see an acceptable alternative at this point.
It’s good to see a thoughtful post on occasion.
I guess you guys are part of the conspiracy nuts who think that it is the United States fault for 9/11.
Who conducted 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, Balkin Wars, and so many to count.
If you think the Islamic Facisim is a boogy term coined by the Republicans, then I’m sorry! Your politics and party affiliation has really made you blind.
Outlander I would call the greatest threat to our world today global warming.
(bush is a close 2nd!)
And YOU will laugh.
But you see, there is science behind the threat I see. Too, the threat truly embraces “the world”.
Joe’s perceived “greatest threat” (and yours??…bahhhh??) has behind it only irrational fear and imagined nationalistic peril.
Explain that to the people who died on 9/11.
Explain that to the women who are oppresed in their society.
Explain why it is ok for Islamic Facism to spread and rule our world. Dude! They could care less about you. You’re an infidel. Just because you hate Bush, won’t save your head on the chopping block.
Joe,
Explain to the people who died on 9/11 that 15 of the 19 hijackers were SAUDIS, yet our president considers them his buddies.
The women of SAUDI ARABIA are held to the same religious restrictions as the women in Iraq are, yet I don’t see us invading Saudi Arabia. On the contrary.
Fact: Iraqi women were much freer during Saddam’s secular rule than they are now. Many were doctors and teachers. With the Sunnis and Shiites, the strict religious law is back again. So why is that right?
We didn’t go after terrorists when we invaded Iraq. We went after Saddam. Well, “we” have him (thanks to the Kurds who found him and handed him over to us in the spidey hole), so what’s going on now?
Maybe discovering WHY the U.S. is not liked in the Middle East would go a long way in solving some of the problems.
The following is part of an article I copied not long after we went into Iraq. Maybe it’ll give some people some insight.—In Egypt, 98 percent of the population holds an unfavorable view of the United States, up from 76 percent in 2002, according to fresh polling by Zogby International.
Interviews by Cox correspondents on four continents bear out the survey results. They suggest that U.S. moral leadership has eroded considerably. They also indicate that rising anti-Americanism is not merely a problem of perceptions that can be fixed by improving the packaging.
The escalating anger at the United States stems mainly from its foreign policy, which is regarded by most as coddling dictators, biased in favor of Israel, maddeningly unilateral and obsessed with controlling oil.
“You talk to the government now and you feel like you are talking to the old government.” Hamdi Yousef al-Yaseri, Iraq. Asked what “democracy” means, al-Yaseri, like many Iraqis, has a cloudy picture of it. “It means so many things,” he said. “It means you can go to parties, picnics, trips with your family. You can go out and feel relaxed. You can go see people. Not like now.”
“They always use human rights to attack us, but this war is totally lacking in human rights,” said Zhang Tianfeng (China), 34. “Fighting a war to achieve democracy doesn’t make sense. It violates the principles of democracy.”
—I’m sorry, I don’t have a link for that, but I’m sure if you google it, you will find it.
Actually wern’t the Orthodox Chirstian Serbs the assholes of the balkans extermantiating both catholic croats and Muslim kosovans.
We used to have a saying in Nam, “Fighting for peace, is like fvcking for Virginity!”
steve, that was seen on MANY t-shirts back in the day. Sadly, the statement is true.
Much as I hate to say it, Joe Williams is right. For all the wrong reasons, Islam is becoming our biggest threat. What started as adventurism by the current administration has fanned the flames of long-smouldering resentment and hatred.
Americans as a whole don’t understand that not everybody thinks the same way we do. While the logic of Democracy and our way of life make perfect sense to us, it’s blaspemy to Islam. We now have a couple of generations of hard-core Islamic Fundamentalists who’s whole point in life is to destroy us. We’re not going to change that. We’ve supported their mortal enemy for too long. Next to the Jewish State, they hate us most. Right or wrong, our stratiegic interests collide with the Islamic Ideal and parallel those of Israel. We can’t let Middle East oil fall into the hands of Radical Islamists.
Though it pains me to say so, the best thing that could happen for us would be for Israel to wipe them all out, or at least bomb them back to the stone age.
And spare the oil fields, of course.
XXX,
I don’t know. It’s their oil, not ours. Who are we to say they’re wrong? Because their ideals are different than ours? Because their religion is different than ours? Because their view of how they rule the people is different than ours?
And before anybody blasts me for being pro-terrorist, let’s remember that many countries throughout the world have had their own, even the U.S., from the beginning of time.
If the U.S. would mind its own business in much of world affairs, we wouldn’t have lost 2,000-3,000 people in the WTC. We wouldn’t have lost 2500 + troops in Iraq. Switzerland remains neutral and seems to be doing fine. Can’t we have national pride and patriotism without being a world power?
Guess not.
RD, of course it’s their oil, and I wouldn’t presume to say they’re wrong. But we, the U.S. is in a bad spot.
Hypothetical question:
Considering that oil is the life-blood of this country, and cutting off the supply of said oil would probably cause the downfall of this country, If Middle East countries cut off our oil supply, would you support taking oil by force?
I don’t like the choices either, but when the issue becomes us or them, I’m for us.
Fighting for peace does make sense.
Lets see…
WWII:
Hitler is bent on conquest and genocide.
How did we stop him and bring about peace?
War.
I know you left wing people are all about your utopian ideals where everyone lives in harmony, but unfortunately the only harmony you have is provided to you by the fact that the US has the military it does and can promote peace and stability with it.
Weakness invites destruction and war.
RD,
I hate to tell you this, but WAKE UP.
The US is part of a global economy. We don’t live in the 1700’s when being isolationist didn’t take effort.
The US is going to be involved in world affairs.
The only people we seem to piss off are the islamic facist terrorists.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t think giving into their demands is good policy.
Of course, you are one of those blame America people who think that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if the US minded it’s own business.
Now if you could only tell me EXACTLY what it is that the US should do to mind it’s own business…
Should we never do anything with anyone for fear of offending them?
Give me a break.
One of the few right-wingers who actually posted on topic was Outlander who asked this question–
“who it is that are killing the civilians? Now, why are they doing it?”
I can’t tell who’s killing who, Outlander.
Why don’t you explain it?
If you can . . .
Nathan–
Defending the use of war in general does not defend this war in Iraq.
Japan attacked us a Pearl Harbor. Of course, we had to react, and that was right and just.
Iraq not only DID NOT ATTACK US, it did not attack us in the past (it attacked Iran, which we supported–and Kuwait, which we opposed). It had no capability of attacking us (WMD’s), and if it had it, it could not deliver those weapons against a vigilant US.
A support for war in general does in no way justify this war in Iraq.
See XXX you are giving in.
You are reluctantly embracing one little three letter word “war” for the sake of another little three letter word “oil”
That’s the key folks, oil.
Get past oil and we have absolutely no interests in the mideast.
This is the nation that put men on the Moon in 9 years. Let’s start addressing the solution to oil instead of continually embracing the problems our dependence on it causes.
Blueskies,
I was not making a case for the war against terrorism with my comments.
As far as why there is violence, I will give you a summary:
-Iraq is a unique country in that it has a large population of both sunni and shiite muslims.
-Iran has been backing some of the insurgency with technology.
-A bunch of the fighting is incited by mercenaries from other countries.
-All these factors are causing the secritarian violence between the sunni and shiite muslims to increase for retributions against each other.
-Saddam had in place a network of stock piles of ammo and weapons for just this kind of fight and now they are being exploited by the insurgency and terrorists.
Those are just some real quick things off the top of my head, of course it is more complicated, but I am not going to write a story here.
I could give you the standard liberal response though (If you would like):
“It is Bush’s fault.”
“Now if you could only tell me EXACTLY what it is that the US should do to mind it’s own business…”
We could start with not arming other countries, then not arming the countries we want them to fight with. We invite war for our own purposes and gain. Not that we want to get involved in the actual thing, but we do enjoy encouraging them. We install the leaders we want in those countries, and then when they don’t do what we want, we uninstall them. Witness Saddam.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Peace isn’t profitable.
Concerning the global economy, we’re in the process of totally screwing ourselves. WE used to be fairly independent and were the largest exporters of products in the world. What do we export now? Only a small portion of what we used to.
You’re right, we have moved into the 21st century, but the advancement of mankind may be our downfall. I guess time will tell.
“Of course, you are one of those blame America people who think that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if the US minded it’s own business.”
Then, pray, please tell me what was the cause of 9/11?
Outlander,
You want to know who’s killing who? It’s a religious war, as the majority are. Sunnis versus Shiites. Similar to the Catholics versus the Protestants. These are two sects of the same religion. And the U.S., bless our hearts, gave them the opportunity to do this. Are ya proud now?
I see Nathan and I agree on something, at least to a point.
Has anyone checked the temperature in hell?
“-Saddam had in place a network of stock piles of ammo and weapons for just this kind of fight and now they are being exploited by the insurgency and terrorists.”
Nathan, just so I know where you’re coming from with the above, would you explain a little more, please?
I had an interesting phone conversation with an old friend of mine this weekend…
We were talking about various things but we ended up on the topic of politics and than the Iraq war and now the Israeli war and the continuing tensions with N. Korea and Iran.
We started talking worst case scenarios and guess what, he said, not me, (hes not very political) well, if we had to go to war, we dont have enough people. Would we have to reinstate the draft?
I was floored that a non political, not super informed person’s though process went straight to the draft and fighting multiple wars on multiple fronts all at once.
If us, idiots in the middle of the country in a backwater town can think of these things, why has the white house? we hear nothing bout any plans in Iraq and now with the media concentrated in Israel, the White House can do what they wish in Iraq without the oversight. Interesting…
(sorry for the rambling, watching Fox News, hard to concentrate while yelling at the idiots on there….)
JR,”Get past oil and we have absolutely no interests in the mideast.”
Agreed!
What would happen to the U.S. if our supply of oil were cut off tomorrow? The economy would break down. Millions of Americans would be out of work. People would starve. If your son were starving and somebody across the street had plenty of food, would you steal that food to feed your son? Would you resort to violence if need be?
If the Middle East were to cut off our oil supply, that would be an act of war IMHO, because the expected result would be to ruin our country.
While it might not be nice to take their oil by force, it is the logical solution.
“While it might not be nice to take their oil by force, it is the logical solution.”
Agreed
I always said, I had no problem with invading Iraq if they would have just said, “its because we want their oil” and of course if our gas prices would have dropped… that would have been nice too…
XXX
Of course change is hard. That is why there is so little of it!
Probably the best example of the kind of “collapse” you are talking about has already occurred at least once in American history. The economy collapsed before the Great Depression. Was it hard? Yes. Did people starve in the streets? I honeslty don’t know. Did America end? No! Hard decisions were made and long standing institutions reordered. Witness the result! From the 1940’s to the 1980’s, America was an absolute dynamo!
If the assertion is that American society is absolutely at the mercy of mideast oil, that it endures or fails just on that, then isn’t it better to get damn busy changing that?
We can’t fight our way out of this dilemna. We will only end up fighting everyone else with the same dilemna. (Some of them are damned formidable) And we shouldn’t fight to preserve that status quo.
RD,
You are going to need to be more specific with the countries we armed and why you have a problem with it.
There are way to many variables involved in why we have armed certain countries to simply say the mere act is wrong.
However, if you want to say the mere act of arming other countries is wrong, I disagree.
Alliances are built on strength and helping one another.
Helping make our allies stronger helps us.
Throughout the cold war we armed people to help fight against the oppression of communism and to prevent its spread around the globe.
That is just one example.
Who is this “we” you speak of installing Saddam?
There is a bunch of history in the Middle East and reason to things. Besides, people change. If one day you are our friend and the next our enemy the mere fact that once you were our friend doesn’t get you off the hook.
The cause of 9/11?
The terrorist who flew those planes into the buildings.
RD,
No one is happy that a few of the Sunni’s and Shiite’s are involved in secritarian violence against each other.
Most of them want to and are willing to live in peace.
It doesn’t help when you have Iran pushing one side and funding them and mercenaries and rogue agents from around the middle east doing the same on both sides and attacking US troops to.
However, it is not us that gave them the opportunity. We are the ones trying to prevent further violence and help establish peace there.
I suppose you would prefer that Saddam be in power still, killing people and doing whatever brutal things it took to stay in power as long as things “seemed” to be all great and wonderful for those Saddam deemed it to.
I bet you thought Stalin was a wonderful man too didn’t you?
Nathan?
9-11?Now we are told by you, Hank, all the right wing shills and bush himself that “they hate our freedom and want to kill us”.Yikes! That should scare anyone. Well anyone who doesn’t search for truth that is.
Osama bin Laden himself has weighed in on the matter.
He has said that other countries are free and yet Al Quada did not attack them.
IF the “official” explanation of 9-11 is to be believed, and yes I DID say if; 9-11 was the result of American presence in Saudi Arabia.
I note we are not in Saudi Arabia anymore.
I note that though bin Laden is alive and well, there have been no further mass attacks on America. There have also not been any credible plots of one uncovered.
JR,”Get past oil and we have absolutely no interests in the mideast.”
I also agree — plus we’ll be FORCED to cut oil use soon, when signs of global warming become undeniable.
Also, less pollution = health benefits, and high oil prices are already making alternatives desireable.
An excellent column, written in 1990, explaining the solutions,http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Security/S90-26_MakeFuelEffGulf.pdf
We’ve got even better technology to do it today, described at http://oilendgame.com
Good catch cosmos.
One of the first things you read on oilendgame references profits, jobs, and security.That should get anyones attention.
“The cause of 9/11?
The terrorist who flew those planes into the buildings.”
And 15 of the 19 were Saudis, yet we went into Iraq.
Thanks for finally answering the question put to Outlander, Nathan.
Your analysis is basically correct if anything can be believed from the MSM.
But isn’t this exactly why the war opponents warned Bush NOT to invade Iraq?
Because there’d be a big civil war along ethnic/religious lines that we wouldn’t be able to stop? And it would increase Iran’s influence in the region?
YES. YES. and YES.
Everybody against the war was predicting exactly what you say is happening.
We also predicted that such a conflict is not winnable, any more than the Israeli conflict with Palestine is winnable or the French in Algeria or the US in Vietnam.
But don’t listen to us. We’ve only been right about everything so far . . .
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/22/MNGIHK3KE11.DTL
(07-22) 04:00 PDT Washington — Faced with almost daily reports of sectarian carnage, Republicans are shifting their message on the war in Iraq from optimistic talk of progress to acknowledging serious problems and pointing up mistakes in planning and execution.
Rep. Gil Gutknecht, R-Minn., once a strong supporter of the war, returned from Iraq this week declaring that conditions in Baghdad were far worse “than we’d been led to believe,” and urging that troop withdrawals begin immediately.
Other Republican lawmakers acknowledge that it is no longer tenable to say the news media is ignoring the good news in Iraq and painting an unfair picture of the war. About 4,338 Iraqi civilians died violent deaths during the first six months of 2006, according to a new report by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq. Last month alone, 3,149 civilians were killed — an average of more than 100 a day.
“It’s like after (Hurricane) Katrina, when the secretary of Homeland Security was saying all those people weren’t really stranded (at the New Orleans civic center) when we were all watching it on TV,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C. “I still hear about that. We can’t look like we won’t face reality.”
*****
Republicans facing reality . . . what a concept!
Welcome to the WEblog, Norman!
And thanks for bringing some facts to the table. Just don’t expect them to go without debate. Well, debate without facts, that is.
Nathan,
Your satire sucks.
As for the rest, study history a little closer, although I doubt you’ll see anything you don’t want to see.
JR,
I am curious. You say 9/11 was because of our presence in Saudi Arabia.
Do you think the terrorists were justified in what they did?
Do you think we should have removed our presence from Saudi Arabia because the terrorists demanded it?
I hate to break it to you and completely destroy your argument, but the US still has forces in Saudi Arabia and we still use their air bases too.
It appears as if that pretty much destroyed your entire argument…
Have a nice day.
And to comment on a few other things:
Bin Laden may be “alive and well” but he sure isn’t giving interviews or openly training terrorists anymore now is he?
And about your statement of Al Qaida not attacking anyone else:
What about Spain? 2004
The London bombing? 2005
You say it was just Saudi Arabia too. But what did Osama supposedly say in 2004?
Didn’t he offer a truce to all European countries who withdrew their troops from the entire Islamic world?
It was not just Saudi Arabia, it is the Middle East.
Lets go JR, what crap do you have for me now?
When you actually engage in a discussion with me, I come to the table with the facts.
I suppose you could go the RD route and go away pouting…
xxx,
Your arguement won’t wash. Saddam was perfectly happy to sell us all the oil we wanted at the price of $25 per barrel. The arabs can’t eat their oil, they have to sell it because that is all they have to garner foreign exchange.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
Well Nathan I have a number of “irons in the fire” on this thread. That little post you refer to is just one. I’d rather not devote an in depth post to it. I’d prefer working in the direction of removing any need we have to be in the mideast while simultaneously addressing the problem of global warming. To whit, I’d like to discuss no more oil.You know that IS a solution to this mideast business. So it’s not really off topic.
But I do owe you an answer. I’ll do it in the form of short answers to each of your question/assertions. It is up to you and other readers to match them up. I’ll start at the top.It is my understanding thatBin Laden was not happy about US forces in Saudi Arabia. And this was a primary reason for the 911 attack. Do you have another reason?
It does not matter if I think the terrorists were justified in what they did. They didn’t ask my take. They felt justified enough to do it. Whether acts of terror for some cause or other is justifiable is not really debatable.Give anybody the right provocation or cause and they are probably capable of resorting to terrorism. It has also been going on for thousands of years including several instances in American history.
I may be in error here. It was my understanding US troops were no longer in Saudi Arabia. So a clean answer here is not possible. I personally would like to see the day when there is no US presence in mideast at all. I believe I better work for that by arguing about what could be achieved rather than perpetuating what has limped along in the past. What the terrorists might want doesn’t enter into it.
Bin Laden is indeed alive and well. He is NOT training terrorists in Iraq and apparently never was. Any number of groups ARE training terrorists in Iraq now.
I did not say a thing about attacks elsewhere. I said there have been no further mass attacks in the US. There has also been no exposure/thwart of any credible mass attack in the US.
You come to the table with facts? Others do as well. Ususally this is irellevant to you. If you have facts that contradict my earlier post or my longer than planned explanation of it for you, I invite you to share those facts. Short that you don’t get to claim “destroying” my post.
Heartlander,
You didn’t really expect a multi-ethnic/multi-racial “democracy” to actuall function well, did you? :)
V.L.R.B!!!
Just for Nathan, a little research. This is from Wikipedia. It seems we are both right.
On February 27, it was announced that the US would be allowed to launch warplanes from its bases inside Saudi Arabia, to support the Iraq War – and would in turn begin a phased withdrawal from the country.[1]On April 29, Donald Rumsfeld announced that he would be withdrawing US troops from the country stating that the Iraq War no longer required the support. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz had earlier said that the continuing US presence in the kingdom was putting American lives in danger. The announcement came one day after the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) was shifted from Prince Sultan Air Base to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.The move was controversial, as some said that it was a needless contingent that only enraged Muslim populations, while others said that the United States were caving to the demands of Osama bin Laden, whose key demand throughout on-going al-Qaeda attacks was that the US must withdraw its forces from the region.U.S. officials transferred control of portions of Prince Sultan Air Base to Saudi officials at a ceremony on 26 August 2003. The base had been home to about 60,000 US personnel over time.Roughly 4,500 US troops were redeployed from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, leaving about 500 in Saudi Arabia, primarily at Eskan Village.
“Outlander, You want to know who’s killing who? It’s a religious war, as the majority are. Sunnis versus Shiites.”
RD: I’m a little late to the party today. In regard to the above, I did not ask a real question. It was a rhetorical question to Truemad or Trublue or Boyhowdy or ProudLib or Galahad or whoever the hell he is now.
In regard to your answer, it is not just a conflict between sects. A lot of the major violence is being done by Islamic foreign fighters for the purpose of keeping the country from stabilizing and to foment the rancor between the Sunnis and the Shiites.
Nathan, thanks so much for the good laugh. I hate to burst your bubble, but I’m not pouting. I have better things to do.
You might try a little research. Maybe start with people like Pol Pot, who killed 2 million of his own people with very little done. Then move back to Hitler, who was pretty much ignored for doing the same, until he started going into other countries with his genocide. Yes, the U.S. definitely helped win WWII, but we came in rather late. And we (the U.S.) seem to like to make it appear that it was “our” war.
This can be looked at in two different ways. I’ll let you figure that out. I’ve found that trying to see more than one side does help a person see more and, at the same time, learn more.
Out, I won’t disagree with you on your last paragraph, but the root of the sectarian violence is there. Others are taking advantage of that, yes. I guess the U.S. has never done that.
Ian,the Arabs don’t have to “eat” their oil. China will be glad to buy it.
“Saddam was perfectly happy to sell us all the oil we wanted at the price of $25 per barrel.”
Yeah, but last I heard, Saddam isn’t selling oil to anybody now. And Saddam wasn’t an Islamic psycho.
Saddam paid suicide bombers to blow up innocents in Israel. Saddam trained terrorists.In the current Israeli/Lebanese war, the Arab countries are actually being rather tame, their leaders, perhaps, not wanting to end up line Saddam! Of course, the Arabs are not thrilled about the Persian, Iranian, Shiites, who control Hezbollah.Even so, none of us know how this might be playing out if Saddam was still in power.As a staunch defender of Israel, I am very happy Saddam is gone and that Israel doesn’t have to worry about Iraq bankrolling terrorists.
Nice story — any semblence of TRUTH?
I’m thinking these right wing extremist types view Bush as an agent of God sent to usher in Armegeddon. Scary thing is, I think Bush believes the same thing. I see he’s accommodating Israel by filling an emergency request for precision guided bombs so Israel can keep the bombings up.
Outlander, I think I heard that foreign fighters constitute less than 5% (or was it 1%) of the Iraqi insurgency
“A lot of the major violence is being done by Islamic foreign fighters for the purpose of keeping the country from stabilizing and to foment the rancor between the Sunnis and the Shiites.”
Foreign from where? Arabia?
Then why the hell didn’t we attack them?
Truth is, nobody knows what the hell is going on there. But it’s playing out pretty much the way those of us who remember Vietnam playing out.
Lots of idiots in America thinking they can change things a million miles away, like the English thought they could control Ireland etc.
And, as long as the blood shed is thousands of miles away, they’ll be perfectly happy to watch events play out. America, is always ready to fight a war on foreign soil.
Pull all of our troops out of Iraq. It is doing no good for them to be there. Follow the same strategy we are in Lebanon. Let the folks fight it out on thier own terms.
Lon,
Not that I disagree with your last post, especially the first part of it, but do you know what our strategy is concerning Lebanon? Continue to arm the Israelis.
Bush was going to send Condi to Saudi Arabia to get the saudies to apply pressure on hammas. Today’s news is Saudies are trying to put pressure on Bush to get an end to the fighting. Meanwhile Bush is busy trying to rearm the Israelies so they can keep blowing up Lebanon. Where’s the strategy? Saw on cable Israeli citizens are taking some lumps on this one, so it may not last as long as Bush might like.