Iraq (1 Viewer)

Latex lizzie said:
Personally I get bothered when kids are starving anyplace in the world so I dont get your point on that..
Yes, but my point is, people like having someone to blame.

There are millions of malnourished children throughout the middle east. Most of these countries haven't had sanctions so you can't blame the yanks for those kids deaths. Therefore, do you not think it could be possible that kids would have starved in Iraq anyway?

Latex lizzie said:
the healthcare system under sadam was actually quite good before the sanctions hit..
Yeah, it was good - for Sunnis.

Loads of doctors left Iraq as they didn't like living under a dictatorship and their qualifications meant they could get employment elsewhere without living in fear of their lives.

Latex lizzie said:
As for me hating the yanks..I dont hate the yanks but I do hate their administration.
I didn't actually think you believe all americans are evil.
 
spiritualtramp said:
There are millions of malnourished children throughout the middle east. Most of these countries haven't had sanctions so you can't blame the yanks for those kids deaths. Therefore, do you not think it could be possible that kids would have starved in Iraq anyway?

Good (pretty unbiased) article about the affects of the sanctions:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright
 
spiritualtramp said:
I made them all up!

Ha ha no, actually they come from here
http://www.usaid.gov
It's not that I don't trust a press release from "an independent federal government agency that receives overall foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State" - but I'd like to see a report from Amnesty or an true independant agency on the ground over there.

spiritualtramp said:
However, I firmly believe in democracy and kind of changed my opinions seeing Iraqis vote.
Saddam was a brutal leader, I've read loads of accounts by kurds of the shit they had to put up with and just cannot bring myself to say Saddam should have been left alone.
So you support 10s of thousands dead in the (false/fake/call it what you will) name of bringing democracy to Iraq and ridding it of Saddam? 10s of thousands dead - stack them up in a field - that's a big pile of dead people.
(anyone know the lowest estimate for dead including military?)
There were other options you know.

spiritualtramp said:
A little? Why don't you read those figures again. I know they conflict with the america want to kill all the arabs theory but they are the facts. If the US did no rebuilding at all, had no programmes for education and didn't give a damn about the basic human rights of iraqis to vote for their own leaders and to believe what they want (shias were horribly oppressed under Saddam) I'd totally agree with your stance. However, they do seem to give a fuck about these things so I refuse to just think it is as simple as the west hate arabs, end of.
America is rebuilding what it destroyed - at a cost. Are the rebuilding contracts going to Iraqi firms? Pretty much all the money granted by US aid must be spent on US products. Do you see how fake the whole effort is?
Why are they rebuilding Iraq in the first place and how can you possibly see it as a positive thing?
 
aoboa said:
It's not that I don't trust a press release from "an independent federal government agency that receives overall foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State" - but I'd like to see a report from Amnesty or an true independant agency on the ground over there.


So you support 10s of thousands dead in the (false/fake/call it what you will) name of bringing democracy to Iraq and ridding it of Saddam? 10s of thousands dead - stack them up in a field - that's a big pile of dead people.
(anyone know the lowest estimate for dead including military?)
There were other options you know.


America is rebuilding what it destroyed - at a cost. Are the rebuilding contracts going to Iraqi firms? Pretty much all the money granted by US aid must be spent on US products. Do you see how fake the whole effort is?
Why are they rebuilding Iraq in the first place and how can you possibly see it as a positive thing?

min and max possible civilians killed here.Just add whatever the pentagon isn't telling you about the troops.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


Who was killed?

24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.

When did they die(your point of insurgents not withstanding)?
30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).

Who did the killing?
US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.

Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9%(ahem) of civilian victims.

Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths. (you can blame instability on this)
Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

What was the most lethal weaponry?
Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).

How many were injured?
At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded.
The invasion phase caused 41% of all reported injuries.
Explosive weaponry caused a higher ratio of injuries to deaths than small arms.
The highest wounded-to-death ratio incidents occurred during the invasion phase.
 
spiritualtramp said:
There are millions of malnourished children throughout the middle east. Most of these countries haven't had sanctions so you can't blame the yanks for those kids deaths. Therefore, do you not think it could be possible that kids would have starved in Iraq anyway?

If you look at this here:

http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/english/map1.html

you will find a list of the 45 countries that Unicef regard as being "seriously off track" in terms of achieving the millenium development goal of reducing infant mortality rates. Only one of these countries is in the middle east - and it's Iraq.
 
cavuto-20060224-2.jpg
 
American troops want swift pull-out from Iraq
>By Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden in Washington
>Published: February 28 2006 19:04 | Last updated: February 28 2006 23:54
>>
Most American troops in Iraq believe the US should withdraw within the next year, according to the first poll of US military personnel there.

President George W. Bush, whose overall approval rating fell to a new low of 34 per cent this week, has repeatedly said the US would finish the mission in Iraq.

But a Zogby International/Le Moyne College poll found that only 23 per cent of US troops believed they should stay “as long as they are needed”.
Rare poll reveals rift between president and troops
Seventy-two per cent said the US should withdraw within 12 months, and 29 per cent said they should pull out immediately.

Meanwhile, a CBS News poll this week recorded another record low for the president – only 30 per cent of respondents approved of his handling of Iraq.

John Zogby, president of Zogby International, said US commanders in Iraq unofficially gave approval for the poll of 944 respondents to take place. It took place before last week’s bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra.

Although Mr Bush has acknowledged that Iraq played no role in September 11, 85 per cent of the troops said the US mission was mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks”.

The poll revealed stark differences between regular and reserve troops; 49 per cent of reservists and 43 per cent of the National Guard said the US should pull out immediately, against 9 per cent of marines.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the poll figures were “not borne out in recruiting and retention statistics”. While Mr Bush insists progress is being made in Iraq, US intelligence and military officials increasingly fear a civil war. General Michael Maples, director of the Pentagon’s Defence Intelligence Agency, told a Senate hearing on Tuesday: “We’re also in a very tenuous situation right now.”

Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e12cfe08-a889-11da-aeeb-0000779e2340,s01=1.html
 
maybe this kind of thing might not happen then....

0315AP-IRAQ-VIOLENCE06

Last update: March 15, 2006 – 6:12 AM

11 Killed in U.S. Raid North of Baghdad
BAQOUBA, Iraq (AP) - A suicide bomber on a bicycle missed a police patrol and killed at least two civilians Wednesday north of Baghdad, police said.
By ZIAD KHALAF, Associated Press Writer

http://www.startribune.com/722/story/308162.html

ISAHAQI, Iraq (AP) - Eleven people - most women and children - were killed when a house was bombed during a U.S. raid north of Baghdad early Wednesday, police and relatives said.
The U.S. military acknowledged four deaths - a man, two women and a child - in the raid that they said netted an insurgent suspect in the rural Isahaqi area, about 50 miles north of the capital.

The victims, some wrapped in blankets, were driven in the back of three pickup trucks to the Tikrit General Hospital, about 45 miles to the north, relatives said.

Associated Press photographs showed the bodies of two men, five children and four other covered figures arriving at the hospital accompanied by grief-stricken relatives.

A suicide bomber on a bicycle missed a police patrol and killed at least two civilians Wednesday in Bagouba north of Baghdad, police said.

Six others were wounded in the attack in downtown Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, police said.

The provincial police command said the bomber's explosives appeared to have detonated prematurely as he was peddling toward the patrol.

Riyadh Majid, who identified himself as the nephew of the killed head of the family - Faez Khalaf - told AP at the hospital that U.S. forces landed in helicopters and raided the home early Wednesday.

Khalaf's brother, Ahmed, said nine of the victims were family members who lived at the house and two were unidentified visitors.

"The killed family was not part of the resistance; they were women and children,'' Ahmed Khalaf said. "The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death.''

The U.S. military said it was targeting and captured an individual suspected of supporting foreign fighters for al-Qaida in Iraq.

"Troops were engaged by enemy fire as they approached the building,'' said Tech. Sgt. Stacy Simon, a military spokeswoman. "Coalition forces returned fire utilizing both air and ground assets. The targeted individual was detained during this raid.''

The building and a vehicle were destroyed, the military said.

Police Capt. Laith Mohammed, in nearby Samarra, said American warplanes and armor were used in the strike, which destroyed the house. The 11 people inside were killed, he said.

An AP reporter at the scene said the roof of the house collapsed, three cars were destroyed and two cows were killed.

A suicide bomber on a bicycle missed a police patrol and killed at least two civilians Wednesday north of Baghdad, police said.

Six others were wounded in the attack in downtown Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, police said.

The provincial police command said the bomber's explosives appeared to have detonated prematurely as he was peddling toward tmf323he patrol. (PROFILE (COUNTRY:Iraq; ISOCOUNTRY3:IRQ; UNTOP:142; UN2ND:145; APGROUP:MiddleEast; APGROUP:Asia;) (COUNTRY:United States; ISOCOUNTRY3:USA; UNTOP:021; APGROUP:NorthAmerica;)
 
expansionist Iran? hahahahahahaha.

US 'may want to keep Iraq bases'
by
Wednesday 15 March 2006 8:44 AM GMT


The US currently has about 132,000 soldiers in Iraq

The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect oil supplies, the army general overseeing US operations in Iraq has said.
While the Bush administration has downplayed prospects for permanent US bases in Iraq, General John Abizaid told a House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday he could not rule that out.
Abizaid said that policy would be worked out with a unified, national Iraqi government if and when that is established, "and it would be premature for me to predict".
Many Democrats have pressed President George Bush to firmly state that the United States does not intend to seek permanent military bases in Iraq, a step they said would help stem the violence there.
Abizaid also told the Appropriations subcommittee on military quality of life that while an Iraqi civil war was possible, "I think it's a long way from where we are now to civil war".
Echoing Bush's statement on Monday on the outlook for reducing US forces in Iraq, Abizaid said if Iraqis can form a unified government, "I think there's every reason to believe ... that we'll be able to bring the size of the force down much more so by December of '06".
Deterring Iran
Abizaid cited the need to fight al-Qaida and other extremists groups and "the need to be able to deter ambitions of an expansionistic Iran" as potential reasons to keep some level of troops in the region in the long term.
But he said it would be far less than the 200,000 currently deployed in the region, including 132,000 in Iraq.
"Clearly our long-term vision for a military presence in the region requires a robust counter-terrorist capability," Abizaid said.
"No doubt there is a need for some presence in the region over time primarily to help people help themselves through this period of extremists versus moderates."
Vital interest
Abizaid also said the United States and its allies have a vital interest in the oil-rich region.



"Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend," he said.



Representative David Price, a North Carolina Democrat, questioned "what kind of signal that sends to the American people and to the Iraqis and the region ... if somehow there is ambiguity on our ultimate designs in terms of a military presence in Iraq".



Last week the leading Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, California Representative Jane Harman, wrote to President Bush urging him to clearly spell-out his plans in Iraq.



The administration's "continuing failure to clarify US intentions provides an excuse for certain Iraqis to avoid compromise and jeopardises our ability to succeed in Iraq," she said.

Reuters
By

You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/12459655-B62F-4135-A05B-A04B52821F46.htm
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

21 Day Calendar

Fixity/Meabh McKenna/Black Coral
Bello Bar
Portobello Harbour, Saint Kevin's, Dublin, Ireland

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top