So, Iraq hasn't been getting much play.. but a lot has been going on.

motivez · 07-19-2006, 04:20 PM

BAGHDAD, July 16th -- A suicide bomber detonated explosives Sunday inside a cafe packed with Shiites in northern Iraq, killing 26 people and injuring 22, an Iraqi general said. Gunmen seized a top Oil Ministry official, the second major kidnapping in as many days.

BAGHDAD, July 18 -- A suicide bomber killed more than 50 day laborers Tuesday in the Shiite shrine city of Kufa, adding to intensifying violence that the United Nations says claimed the lives of more than 3,000 Iraqi civilians in June.

A wave of assaults in Baghdad and Kirkuk on Wednesday killed at least 19 people, including a senior Interior Ministry employee and a family of four at a grocery store.
<snip>

Kidnappers abducted more than 20 members of the agency that cares for Sunni religious sites nationwide. And police found 10 bodies dumped in the capital.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 18 — An average of more than 100 civilians per day were killed in Iraq last month, the United Nations reported Tuesday, registering what appears to be the highest official monthly tally of violent deaths since the fall of Baghdad.

United Nations officials said Tuesday that the number of violent deaths had climbed steadily since at least last summer. During the first six months of this year, the civilian death toll jumped more than 77 percent, from 1,778 in January to 3,149 in June, the organization said.
This sharp upward trend reflected the dire security situation in Iraq as sectarian violence has worsened and Iraqi and American government forces have been unable to stop it.
In its report, the United Nations said that 14,338 civilians had died violently in Iraq in the first six months of the year.

And this is just the last few days.. and not even all of the violence. There have been several large car bombs that have averaged anywhere between 20-40+ deaths, and they seem to be icnreasing in frequency.

I made a thread awhile back saying how it was in a state of civil war, just not a full blown one, but after doing some reading.. I found that the number of deaths from sectarian violence were actually higher than other recognized civil wars, so really it's not even a matter of intensity.

What's the solution here? I think it's been shown pretty clearly that there isn't a military solution to this, but it's looking increasingly like there might not be a political one either without dividing the country.

There was real hope that Malaki's plan was going to change some things, but my hopes have been dashed for there to be any real success.

6SpeedTA95 · 07-19-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

And this is just the last few days.. and not even all of the violence. There have been several large car bombs that have averaged anywhere between 20-40+ deaths, and they seem to be icnreasing in frequency.

I made a thread awhile back saying how it was in a state of civil war, just not a full blown one, but after doing some reading.. I found that the number of deaths from sectarian violence were actually higher than other recognized civil wars, so really it's not even a matter of intensity.

What's the solution here? I think it's been shown pretty clearly that there isn't a military solution to this, but it's looking increasingly like there might not be a political one either without dividing the country.

There was real hope that Malaki's plan was going to change some things, but my hopes have been dashed for there to be any real success.

I think the solution is to get Iraq's military and police force up to speed as soon as possible then begin to draw down US forces to something more reasonable. Maybe down to 25,000 or 30,000 troops?

If we're going to pussy foot around the terrorist for fear of collateral damage then we need to get Iraq up to speed and get out. If we're goin to do our damn job and defend the Iraqi people and quit being politically correct then I think we'll solve the problem much faster.

motivez · 07-19-2006, 04:30 PM

Well, we have to "pussy foot" around the terrorists for fear of collateral damage. We can't do what Israel is doing in Lebanon because our job is to protect and provide security for the people while we try to fix the problem(s) we've created.

If we just go in and carpet bomb cities where the Insurgency / Foreign Fighters are, we're not going to have any civilians left to protect. There have already been well over 100k+ civilian deaths in Iraq, we don't need more to solve the problem, we need less.

Donkey® · 07-19-2006, 05:09 PM

I hate the fact we HAVE to have ANY troops there just to try and cover our big mistake. The Iraqis don't want us there. The terrorists don't want us there. The Iraqi government doesn't want us there. The only reason we're staying is to lengthen the amount of time it takes for the complete collapse to happen.

Comrade Ramius · 07-19-2006, 05:12 PM

It is kinda surprising that we haven't heard about all those bombings going on in Iraq, but a bigger news story will do that.

I kinda feel that dividing the country would be the best option for the three majority groups.

Donkey® · 07-19-2006, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Comrade Ramius

It is kinda surprising that we haven't heard about all those bombings going on in Iraq, but a bigger news story will do that.

I kinda feel that dividing the country would be the best option for the three majority groups.

You mean like how Saddam had it?

Thorgrim · 07-19-2006, 07:24 PM

Turkey is threatening to send troops into northern Iraq if the Kurdish PKK terrorist organization does not stop hitting Anatolia from bases in Iraq.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap2887214.html

total chaos FTW

thomez · 07-19-2006, 08:54 PM

You mean this turned into a giant clusterfuck?

Who'da thunk it

motivez · 07-19-2006, 08:57 PM

I thought we had the Kurdish areas pretty much under control and that they were some of the more progressive Iraqi's in terms of adjusting to post-Saddam Iraq?

I remember you posting a thread awihle back about how they were self governing pretty well and were ensuring the insurgency wasn't fucking up their life?

Thorgrim · 07-20-2006, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

I thought we had the Kurdish areas pretty much under control and that they were some of the more progressive Iraqi's in terms of adjusting to post-Saddam Iraq?

I remember you posting a thread awihle back about how they were self governing pretty well and were ensuring the insurgency wasn't fucking up their life?

Well, besides Kirkuk and Mosul, which are too big to really secure in this environment, the most northern parts of Iraq are so friendly its not even funny, GIs have gone there and taken swims in lakes, etc, easy targets for snipers, but they know its safe

However, the seperatists hate Turkey (not americans) and stir up trouble, however, there is no anti-american group in Kurdistan that I am aware of

Scrum · 07-20-2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

You mean this turned into a giant clusterfuck?

Who'da thunk it

But but but we were supposed to be greeted as liberators.

avsp · 07-20-2006, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Comrade Ramius

It is kinda surprising that we haven't heard about all those bombings going on in Iraq, but a bigger news story will do that.

i find this weird, ..., surely whilst not top of the news such stories are reported in all media except the tabloid press?

Over here the default position is that there are bombs/killings every day & later in the news, (after the commericail break) we will give you the figures with footage of some wailing people/crying children/vacant eyed civvies in a damaged market/smoking building whilst security personel stand about & medical types scurry followed by a map graphic, ..., maybe if todays events were in someway perculiar (entire Iraq Olympic committee kidnapped) we'll talk about it a bit earlier (before the commercial break).

Its all slightly different if CoW forces are killed injured, ..., but even that is slipping down the schedule, ..., but its definately mentioned on a a half hour nightly news programe.

Is it really the case that the figures arent given everyday on the mainstrean news?

I kinda feel that dividing the country would be the best option for the three majority groups.

I can see the attraction. However such a process (& even its result) still provides plenty of opportunity for those who seek power by speading/exploiting hatred to claim that the boarder is in the wrong place etc.

Not to say that such an approach cant greatly reduce tensions but it still provides a nexus for grievence/comflict

DosEquis · 07-20-2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think the solution is to get Iraq's military and police force up to speed as soon as possible then begin to draw down US forces to something more reasonable. Maybe down to 25,000 or 30,000 troops?

If we're going to pussy foot around the terrorist for fear of collateral damage then we need to get Iraq up to speed and get out. If we're goin to do our damn job and defend the Iraqi people and quit being politically correct then I think we'll solve the problem much faster.

I have a feeling we are not being told all the information or being fed misinformation to make it sound better than what it really is. The administration and others have said they have 200,000 trained police and soldiers. They have 200,000 plus our 140,000 or whatever it is...and STILL do not have any decent level of security. The level is the same as if it was just our soldiers.

Unfortunately with the insurgent tactics its hard to go after them. There are consequences for being more brutal, such as turning the general public against you. Public support is 100% neccessary to win the political side of this conflict.

avsp · 07-20-2006, 12:15 PM

The Kurds have done remarkably well, ..., in the build up to the war it looked like they were going to get f*cked by absolutly everyone. Their stragic geographical position mitigates against a single Kurd nation.

Its a measure of the stability they've achieved that they feel able to turn their attention to Turkey.They'd do well to leave Turkey alone, IMO.

OTOH from a anti-PNAC POV it makes sense to destabilise Turkey rather than Syria.

The PKK is not a unified group, ..., some elements are Hamas backed, its basically AFAICT a clan based organisation.

I've met several PKK fighters who've fled to UK from rival better armed PKK groupings, ..., I keep meaning to track them down again for their views

TekDragon · 07-20-2006, 01:23 PM

My main problem with the situation is that you have people (even in forums like this who should know better) trying to portray the US as being responcible for those deaths. They completely ignore the fact that the VAST majority (i'd be willing to hazard a percentage of over 98%) of civilians are being killed by militants, both foreign and domestic. They have a decided anti-US agenda and will skew any amount of facts to push their view of the US being an evil monster on the public.

This area has been experiencing violence like this for centuries. If/when we leave, they will continue experiencing this violence. It burns me up to no end that we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq just as we did in Germany and Japan, at a FAR greater pace than we did in those 2 countries, and yet public sentiment is at rock bottom because of the liberal focus on US military casualties (which is astronomically low for a 3 year operation) and the skewing of reality to portray the US as being murderers of Iraqi civlians.

DosEquis · 07-20-2006, 01:30 PM

This area has been experiencing violence like this for centuries. If/when we leave, they will continue experiencing this violence.

If this is the case... why are we even bothering. Why don't we just leave. Not in a white flag fashion...but in a fuck you guys fashion.

TekDragon · 07-20-2006, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

This area has been experiencing violence like this for centuries. If/when we leave, they will continue experiencing this violence.

If this is the case... why are we even bothering. Why don't we just leave. Not in a white flag fashion...but in a fuck you guys fashion.

For a few reasons.

1. We're the US of A. We don't move into a country, decimate it, then move out like the heroes of the liberal party: France, Russia, etc have in recent decades. Instead we jump through hoops and ladders to minimize damage in the military venture, then spend the money and time to rebuild the country.

2. We're succeding. Yes, there is secretarian violence. However, if you examine how quickly the Iraqi government has formed and how stable it has become compared to similar times in the post Japan/Germany surrender - you'd be amazed at how much progress they're making.

3. We've proven before that taking the time to rebuild a country, while difficult and expensive, has long term advantages. We took the time to rebuild Germany and they've become a strong US ally that has become a great boon to the EU. We took the time to rebuild Japan and it is an even stronger US ally that has done amazing things for the technology age of this world. Likewise I feel that taking the time to rebuild Iraq will, in the long term, be fruitful.

I leave you with this one parting shot. Would you believe that there were extremely adament and vocal opponents to our occupation and rebuilding of Germany and Japan post WW-II?

Donkey® · 07-20-2006, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by TekDragon

For a few reasons.

1. We're the US of A. We don't move into a country, decimate it, then move out like the heroes of the liberal party: France, Russia, etc have in recent decades. Instead we jump through hoops and ladders to minimize damage in the military venture, then spend the money and time to rebuild the country.

We certainly did that in Vietnam. Afghanistan seems to be going just as shitty. Seems like a waste of money to me.

Originally Posted by TekDragon

2. We're succeding. Yes, there is secretarian violence. However, if you examine how quickly the Iraqi government has formed and how stable it has become compared to similar times in the post Japan/Germany surrender - you'd be amazed at how much progress they're making.

What exactly are we succeeding at? The WWII comparisons don't compare.

Originally Posted by TekDragon

3. We've proven before that taking the time to rebuild a country, while difficult and expensive, has long term advantages. We took the time to rebuild Germany and they've become a strong US ally that has become a great boon to the EU. We took the time to rebuild Japan and it is an even stronger US ally that has done amazing things for the technology age of this world. Likewise I feel that taking the time to rebuild Iraq will, in the long term, be fruitful.

I leave you with this one parting shot. Would you believe that there were extremely adament and vocal opponents to our occupation and rebuilding of Germany and Japan post WW-II?

Again, your comparison of post WWII Japan and Germany and what's going on in Iraq is totally ridiculous. It was Germany and Japan vs the US and Britain et al. Not these Germans vs those Germans vs those Germans.

DosEquis · 07-20-2006, 02:02 PM

Lets say I buy that we are succeeding politically. If there will always be violance, and there always will be I agree with you, then when do you say enough is enough? They have a government now and 200,000 police/soldiers. Why do they still need us? They said "they stand up we stand down". 200,000 of them have stood up why not remove our ground element and leave air support in the region.

What is the plan? What are the benchmarks that we want to acheive? We need some fucking goals other than stay the course. I don't care about a time table. Nobody knows what we are doing.

Germany and Japan were not dominated with religious violance for thousands of years.