Three years on: How many more?

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
BAGHDAD, Iraq - On the eve of the war's third anniversary, nearly 1,500 U.S. and Iraqi soldiers on Sunday sought to root out insurgents from farming villages an hour's drive north of the capital, and at least 35 people died in insurgent and sectarian violence nationwide.

ADVERTISEMENT

Iraqi politicians still had not formed a government more than three months after landmark elections for the country's first permanent post-invasion parliament, but they announced an agreement on naming a Security Council to deal with key matters while negotiations proceed.

With the war starting its fourth year, the 133,000 American troops on the ground inside Iraq was nearly a third more than took part in the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein that began in the early hours of March 20, 2003.

At least 2,314 U.S. military personnel have died in the war, which is estimated to have cost $200 billion to $250 billion so far. President Bush says about 30,000 Iraqis have been killed, while others put the toll far higher.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Md., Bush offered an upbeat assessment.

"We are implementing a strategy that will lead to victory in Iraq. And a victory in Iraq will make this country more secure and will help lay the foundation of peace for generations to come," he said.

Many politicians both inside and outside Iraq said the continuing violence could only be described as a civil war.

"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."


The Bush administration and U.S. military leaders disagreed.

"Personally don't believe, one, that we're there now; two, that civil war is imminent; and, three, that it is inevitable that it will happen," Gen. George Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, said in an interview with Fox television.

In a sign of political progress, Iraq's top politicians emerged from the fourth in a series of U.S.-brokered all-party meetings on forming a new government and reported they had established an advisory, 19-member Security Council.

The council, to be headed by President Jalal Talabani, was established as an interim measure as politicians struggle to agree on the makeup of a new government following the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections.

"It was a successful meeting, and we have agreed on forming a National Security Council whose powers will not contradict the constitution," Adnan al-Dulaimi, a Sunni Arab political leader, told The Associated Press.

Al-Dulaimi said nine council seats would go to Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority, while Kurds and Sunni Arabs each would control four seats and the secular bloc two. Talabani, a Kurd, would head the group.

The exact powers of the council, if any, were not explained. But it appeared to have been formed to ensure that politicians from minority blocs would at least be consulted in advance on important government and security decisions.

The intense political discussions on forming a government began last week under pressure from U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. Al-Dulaimi said the talks would not resume until Saturday because of Shiite and Kurdish holidays this week.

Khalilzad has urged patience for the prolonged political negotiations. "I think it will take a few more weeks," he said Friday.

The speedy formation of a government has become a top U.S. priority on the theory that a unified leadership with representatives from all major factions would quell violence and open the way for American hopes to begin withdrawing troops this summer.

As politicians met in Baghdad, Iraqi police said eight civilians, including a child, were killed during clashes between U.S. troops and gunmen in Duluiyah, 45 miles north of Baghdad. The U.S. military said it was checking the report.

The town is in Iraq's Sunni Arab heartland where the Iraqi army and U.S. forces opened a major airborne campaign last week to hunt insurgents. The American military called it the largest "air assault" operation since the invasion.

Casey, the U.S. commander, said the significance of the operation may have been overblown. "I think it might have got a little bit more hype than it truly deserved," he said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

But he disputed allegations by some U.S. politicians that the operation was ordered for political reasons.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. This operation was planned with the Iraqi security forces, as intelligence was available. ... it was an intelligence based operation and had nothing to do with politics," he said.

Evidence of nightly sectarian violence among Sunnis and Shiites showed up at two Baghdad sewage treatment plants Sunday. Police said they found 14 bodies, bound hand and foot and shot execution style. Such discoveries are being made almost daily since a bombing at a Shiite shrine in Samarra.

Assailants in southwestern Baghdad gunned down a man as he was leaving a Shiite mosque, police said.

A Baghdad policeman driving on a rural road in Latifiyah, about 20 miles south of the capital, was killed by gunmen, police said. Four men riding in the car were wounded.

Elsewhere, two civilians were killed and 10 wounded when gunmen attacked U.S. troops stationed at the governor's office in Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad.

Gunmen killed four guards at archaeological sites in the northern city of Mosul. A fifth policeman and a bystander were wounded.

A roadside bomb exploded on a police patrol in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, killing one officer and injuring 10 others, the Iraqi military said.

Near the southern city of Basra, two officials of the Iraqi Islamic Party were gunned down by four assassins.

In the northern region of Kirkuk, two Iraqi soldiers were found stabbed to death two days after they were reported kidnapped, U.S. authorities said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060319...PZX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Re: RE: Three years on: How m

darkbeaver said:
Jersay I don't think it will ever end, I don't think America can leave the middle east. It's to important to Americans bussiness interests.

No, the United States will never leave the Middle East......as long as we depend on oil and they have it.

This is as it should be.
 

Johnny Utah

Council Member
Mar 11, 2006
1,434
1
38




Where were all these Ani-War protesters when Clinton started the Kosovo War, when he bombed the Chinese Embassy and when he bombed Iraq and Afghanistan?

It wasn't cool to protest then. :roll:

The United States, France, Germany, Russia, China etc will never leave the Middle East because the World depends on it's Oil and a country like Saudi Arabia knows that.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Ya know the crazy thing is that Saddam's own people
lied to him and Saddam lied to everyone else, and
minders entertained families who betrayed other families
swirling lies in a nation of liars.

That's about the best defense you can have against
any foreign intelligence organization you could have.

Wait until the 1000 miles of tapes and documents
get released found in the UN FOOD FOR PALACES.

No one will believe it.
 

Johnny Utah

Council Member
Mar 11, 2006
1,434
1
38
Re: RE: Three years on: How many more?

jimmoyer said:
Ya know the crazy thing is that Saddam's own people
lied to him and Saddam lied to everyone else, and
minders entertained families who betrayed other families
swirling lies in a nation of liars.

That's about the best defense you can have against
any foreign intelligence organization you could have.

Wait until the 1000 miles of tapes and documents
get released found in the UN FOOD FOR PALACES.

No one will believe it.
All The World's Intelligence Agencies Britain, France, Germany, Russia, The United States thought Saddam had WMD's.

There are reports Saddam had his WMD's moved to Syria before the War that could be possible.

The real scary thing is soon one of Saddam's sons Uday or Qusay were going to take over and they both were more crazy and brutal then Saddam ever was.

Theres the tapes of Meetings Saddam had with his cabinet talking of lying to UN Weapons Inspectors misleading them, things like that. Then There's The UN Oil for Food Scandal.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
I had thought that the detection of weapons of mass destruction had been an adject failure — that is the most recent information I had come across, anyway.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Well the Americans Caused the Anarchy, death and general chaos we have now in Iraq. Either way they just can't cut and run and leave the nation in a civil war. For god sacks all what would happen is we'd have some extremist islamist regeme take it's place, ten times worse then what was there in the first place. Of course the USA staying too can't happen as they will waste tons of lifes and wealth by staying there. Though I think the UN is not an orginization to clean up after the Americans, the UN will need to get envolved in this one, and move between the waring parties. The Americans should contribute heavy to such a mission since it's there mess to clean up!!!
 

annabattler

Electoral Member
Jun 3, 2005
264
2
18
As many people predicted,the "pre-emptive" strike did not come with any exit plan.
Nor did it come with any real sense of "intelligence" or any awareness of the political and cultural sensibilities of Iraq.
It's a little like giving a first year med student a scalpel,telling him to cut, and report on what he finds.The patient dies, but maybe the med student learned something(or maybe not,given the American saber rattling at Iran).
If the United States was serious about their Iraq involvement,they'd significantly increase the numbers of their troops there,and at least look like they're offering support to the fledgling government.
 

cortez

Council Member
Feb 22, 2006
1,260
0
36
Johnny Utah said:




Where were all these Ani-War protesters when Clinton started the Kosovo War, when he bombed the Chinese Embassy and when he bombed Iraq and Afghanistan?

It wasn't cool to protest then. :roll:

The United States, France, Germany, Russia, China etc will never leave the Middle East because the World depends on it's Oil and a country like Saudi Arabia knows that.

right on !!!!
i finally agree with you
when democrats do their atrocities the left --sleeps
the democrats are actually scarier---
they are more often able to create war AND actually fool the people into supporting it
the reason is that the right wing will agree with ANY war
wether its contrived by a democrat or rebublican
they LOVE war
its war time all the time for them
so -- no objection from them

and the left wing is too close to
the democrats to see that their presidents
are doing the same thing- only more skillfully

in a way im content that kerry lost the election
he might of actually been able to pull this iraq thing off
and then extend the conflict
bushie boy will bumble along and get bogged down there for awhile
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Re: RE: Three years on: How m

Colpy said:
darkbeaver said:
Jersay I don't think it will ever end, I don't think America can leave the middle east. It's to important to Americans bussiness interests.

No, the United States will never leave the Middle East......as long as we depend on oil and they have it.

This is as it should be.

So why don't we just buy it from them.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Re: RE: Three years on: How m

Colpy said:
darkbeaver said:
Jersay I don't think it will ever end, I don't think America can leave the middle east. It's to important to Americans bussiness interests.

No, the United States will never leave the Middle East......as long as we depend on oil and they have it.

This is as it should be.

Colpy

Are you saying it's okay to march in and steal other country's resources? Canada has ample resources. Is it okay for the U.S. to come in and grab ours ? Or is it only okay if they steal from Arabs?
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Good point Juan and Darkbeaver.

And the funny thing is kind of like the first Gulf War where peaceful solutions could be found or so claimed in Wikipedia, in this case, if America had gotten U.N approval they would have had 60,000 soldiers each from India and Pakistan.

And I do agree with Finder that the U.N has to get involved some how in Iraq to clean up this mess that America caused since most sides want to U.N in. Al-Sadr for one.

It will probably come that way.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
My friend is a US Marine pilot and took part in the ILLEGAL war in Yugoslavia. He told me that they bombed the Serbians unmercifully. He went on to say they attacked power grids and infrastructure to bring the Serbs to heel.

BUT... It was a Democrat and it was Clinton. It is sacriligious for the left to protest any military action done by a Democratic President.

Clinton bombed BILLIONS of innocent women, children and old men, but it was fine with Hollywood.

(If the left can play with the numbers and make up of killed... so can I)
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Re: RE: Three years on: How many more?

EagleSmack said:
My friend is a US Marine pilot and took part in the ILLEGAL war in Yugoslavia. He told me that they bombed the Serbians unmercifully. He went on to say they attacked power grids and infrastructure to bring the Serbs to heel.

BUT... It was a Democrat and it was Clinton. It is sacriligious for the left to protest any military action done by a Democratic President.

Clinton bombed BILLIONS of innocent women, children and old men, but it was fine with Hollywood.

(If the left can play with the numbers and make up of killed... so can I)

This might seem strange to you EagleSmack but the Democrats are not lefties by international standards, much of the world believes America only has one party with two sides. Whichever side is in office the money people win. I've never been able to see the differance, anyway they wear the same suits have the same retarded haircuts and hang out with the same lobyists.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
I have to agree, some democrats are left-wing but most are centralist if you would like to call it that and there are some that are just right wing. So it is not a leftist party by any stretch of the imagination.