US Invasion of Iraq-Updates

[I think not]

Reason for Allies to Remain Willing

 

[mrmom2]

A little biased don't you think ITN I could post %0 That say the exact opposite .The rest of the world needs to be involved and the US needs to get out not build perminent bases like their doing .Paying the Bin Laden family to build too :wink:

 

[I think not]

A little biased? No, plenty biased.

 

[peapod]

bias 8O 8O 8O no kidding mom, the story is written by david frum
a former Bush speech writer...it does not get more bias than that :twisted:

 

[Ocean Breeze]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4660909.stm

 

[Ocean Breeze]

By ALESSANDRA RIZZO, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 26 minutes ago



GLENEAGLES, Scotland - Italy plans to begin withdrawing some of its troops from Iraq in September, Premier Silvio Berlusconi said Friday.



Speaking at the end of the G-8 summit, Berlusconi said the withdrawal plans could change because they depend on security conditions on the ground and denied it was linked to any terrorist threats against Italy.

"We will begin withdrawing 300 men in the month of September," said Berlusconi, who has come under increasing pressure in Italy over his support for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.

He said the partial pullout would not compromise security for the remaining Italian troops or the zone of southern Iraq under their control.

Berlusconi, a staunch ally of President Bush, sent 3,000 troops to Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. The contingent is based in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah.

In recent months, Italian officials have gone back and forth on when a withdrawal might begin. Berlusconi had said September was a possibility, but Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini then talked of early 2006.

On Friday, Berlusconi said he has spoken "several times" to Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair about starting to withdraw Italy's contingent as Iraqi security forces become increasingly capable of securing the territory.

Iraq "must come to a point where it must guarantee its own security," the Italian leader told reporters.

Relations between Washington and Rome have been strained in recent months — first by the killing of an Italian intelligence agent by American soldiers in Iraq and then arrest warrants issued by an Italian court that is accusing 13 purported CIA operatives of kidnapping a militant Egyptian cleric from Italy and sending him to Egypt.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he was sure that any force changes by Italy in Iraq "will be done fully in coordination with the multinational force."

"As we have said before, we very much appreciate the firm and steadfast support that the Italians and Italian government has provided to the operation in Iraq, to the course of building a more free and prosperous country and in helping the Iraqis move forward," he said.

Pressure on Berlusconi has been mounting, even from within his own conservative coalition.

Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli of the right-wing Northern League party said Friday the time had come for the United Nations to begin discussing "the progressive withdrawal of troops, beginning with our contingent, perhaps by September."

"It's evident that after New York, Madrid and London, Italy represents the most probable next objective of the terrorists," he said.

Berlusconi said Italy is a potential target, but added, "It could happen to us as it could happen to another country."

Berlusconi indicated that the intention to start pulling the troops out was not the consequence of threats against Italy or himself that appeared recently on the Web, saying that he had "grown used to them, even though I do not underestimate these threats."

A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe" — which claimed responsibility for Thursday's bombings in London — said the attacks were a punishment for British involvement in the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

July 9, 2005

We know now that George W. Bush confided to one of his friends before he was president that he wanted a war with Iraq and that, unlike his father, he would get rid of Saddam Hussein. And so he has. But as the U.S. polls turn seriously against him and a majority of Americans today say that the war wasn’t worth the loss of lives, it is time to take a reckoning of what Mr. Bush has accomplished.

He wanted a quick war, and he didn’t get that. The U.S. occupiers are faced today, two years after the invasion was launched, with a stiff Iraqi resistance which the U.S. doesn’t seem to be able to quench. Indeed, it seems to be growing more, not less, deadly as time goes on. The U.S. says its strategy is to train Iraqi government troops to the point that they can handle this resistance. But everyone admits, and first of all the U.S. generals on the scene in Iraq, that the U.S. is nowhere near this goal, and that it might not be reached for a number of years, if ever. Donald Rumsfeld himself is talking of needing to stay in Iraq for twelve years, which certainly doesn’t make it seem as if he thinks the Iraqi government is going to be able to handle the resistance very soon without U.S. assistance.

At this point, there are extremely few Iraqi government units that can fight even a minor engagement by themselves. The training doesn’t seem to stick. Now, one can presume that the U.S. trainers are competent and highly motivated. So why doesn’t the training stick? There seem to be several reasons. One is the motivation of the Iraqi troops. They are in it for the most part because it is a relatively well-paying job, if an extremely dangerous one at the moment. So they collect the pay checks and avoid the battles, especially since they are ill-equipped for the most part. One intrepid Westerner who actually went out with these troops for a while (most Western reporters remain in the well-protected Green Zone of Baghdad) discovered that these troops were singing anti-American songs when U.S. advisors were out of hearing.

Few commentators have made the obvious comparison of these U.S.-trained Iraqi troops with the resistance units. The latter, though lacking the U.S. training and U.S. support, seem to fight very well, as admitted by the U.S. military. They are certainly not in it for the money. Dare I suggest they are in it for the patriotism, whether this is Iraqi national patriotism or Islamic jihad or a combination of the two? And this is a quite powerful motivation. Every once in a while, an American advisor points to the fact that rebellions can be crushed, and offers as examples the British crushing of both the Malaysian rebels and the Mau Mau in Kenya. But there are obvious differences. In Malaysia, the rebels were rooted in the Chinese community and the Malay majority had no sympathy for them. And the Mau Mau lacked any access to advanced weaponry. There is no comparison with the situation in Iraq, which is closer in structure to all those resistances that did win out against the West or West-supported regimes.

Mr. Bush also wanted a regime in power that would be a strong, long-term ally, capable of running the country. So far he hasn’t got that either. On all three counts - strength, role as a reliable U.S. ally, and ability to run the country - the new Iraqi government has yet to show that it can meet the bill. Military strength they clearly do not have. So let’s look at the ability to run the country. In the chaotic situation that Iraq presents today, there is an exodus of the skilled professionals which Iraq has in larger supply than most Middle Eastern countries. Under Saddam, some of these professionals left because of repression or fear. Today, they are leaving because their lives are threatened daily by mafiosi, resisters, random violence, and kidnapings. Skilled female labor stays home, in part out of fear of the chaos but in large part because of the Muslim fundamentalist pressures.

As for being a reliable U.S. ally, I sure hope that Condi Rice is not counting on the present Iraqi government in a pinch or in the middle run. For one thing, the Iraqis have to get their act together in the enormous tensions between the differing ethnic/religious groups. If the Iraqi army is weak, that is not true of the militias, which are more clearly the future of order (and disorder) in Iraq. Pulled in all directions, there is no national project, certainly not one of being a good boy in a neoliberal world order.

The third thing Mr. Bush hoped for was the reassertion of an uncontested hegemony of the United States in the world arena. But it is now becoming jaded journalese to point out that de facto multipolarity is the name of the present situation, and that the U.S. is on a downward slide. Dick Cheney can rant all he wants, but one has to wonder whether even he believes that the U.S. is stronger than ever and that the world is complying with U.S. wishes.

And finally, like the narrow-minded provincial that he is, George W. Bush expected that the U.S. would flourish at home and return to the mythical paradise that was the United States of the robber barons of the nineteenth century making their fortunes in a country peopled by happy small-town, Christian families going to church on Sundays and hiding their sins in a big closet. Instead, the United States is living through a national culture war that is massive and threatens to turn violent in the next decade. The U.S. has never been so split internally since the Civil War. Indeed, in some ways, the U.S. is replaying the Civil War. But, as with all these things, the second time around is not only farce but even more vicious.

Richard Nixon seems in retrospect to have been merely a small-time criminal, but at least an intelligent one. He presided over the defeat in Vietnam, but he wasn’t the one who started the war. Nonetheless, his downfall was caused by his skullduggery in the context of the defeat in Vietnam. Will George W. Bush be impeached? Doubtful. But his skullduggery is far vaster than that of Tricky Dick, and history (and the U.S. people) will judge him more harshly.

In the meantime, Iraqis and Americans are dying and being maimed every day. And nothing good will come out of these deaths.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

July 10, 2005

Allawi: this is the start of civil war
Hala Jaber, Amman



IRAQ’S former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has warned that his country is facing civil war and has predicted dire consequences for Europe and America as well as the Middle East if the crisis is not resolved.
“The problem is that the Americans have no vision and no clear policy on how to go about in Iraq,” said Allawi, a long-time ally of Washington.



In an interview with The Sunday Times last week as he visited Amman, the Jordanian capital, he said: “The policy should be of building national unity in Iraq. Without this we will most certainly slip into a civil war. We are practically in stage one of a civil war as we speak.”

Allawi, a secular Shi’ite, said that Iraq had collapsed as a state and needed to be rebuilt. The only way forward, he said, was through “national unity, the building of institutions, the economy and a firm but peaceful foreign relation policy”. Unless these criteria were satisfied, “the country will deteriorate”.

Allawi’s concern comes amid signs of growing violence between Shi’ites, who make up 60% of Iraq’s estimated 26m people, and the Sunni minority who dominated the upper reaches of the civilian bureaucracy and officer corps under Saddam Hussein.

The Shi’ites, who endured decades of oppression, are threatening to purge members of Saddam’s former Ba’ath party from the army and the intelligence services, a move that would provoke fierce retaliation from the Sunnis.

Since the execution-style killings of 34 men whose bound and blindfolded bodies were found in three predominantly Shi’ite areas of Baghdad in May, other tit-for-tat murders have followed, with clerics among the targets.

Tension has increased in the past two weeks following the return of Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi left the country in May to seek medical treatment for a chest wound suffered in an American airstrike, but has now recovered sufficiently to resume his activities.

Earlier this month he claimed that his supporters had killed Sheikh Kamaleddin al-Ghuraifi, a senior aide to Iraq’s most influential Shi’ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Zarqawi has now released an audiotape in which he announces the formation of a new militant unit, the Omar Corps. Its avowed aim is to “eradicate” the Badr brigade, the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the country’s largest Shi’ite political party, which has targeted Sunnis.

Allawi, who became head of the interim government council created after the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, said it was imperative that the security services and military be rebuilt. He has been a staunch critic of the policy followed by Paul Bremer, the American former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, of removing former Ba’athists from positions of power and disbanding Saddam’s army without putting anything else in place.

Allawi said that he had discussed the urgency of rebuilding Iraq’s military with President George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, last year. “Bush earmarked $5.7 billion (£3.2 billion) . . . but I did not receive the money,” Allawi said.

His experience as prime minister had taught him that “force alone will not solve the problems in Iraq”. It needed to be combined with dialogue and money to ensure stability.

However, Allawi insisted the Americans’ presence in Iraq was still required and rejected suggestions that a schedule should be drawn up for their withdrawal. “I cannot see withdrawal based on timing, but based on conditions,” he said. These would be satisfied only once Iraq “develops the capability to deal with threats”.

During his term Allawi lost the support of Iraq’s secular middle class through failing to fulfil his promise of restoring security and because of alleged corruption.

However, he is preparing for a comeback in elections scheduled for December. His supporters believe he will be helped in part by the increasing impact of Iraqi gunmen and suicide bombers since Ibrahim Jaafari became prime minister in April.

More than 1,400 people have since been killed, and many Iraqis who regarded Allawi as a ruthless leader now speak wistfully of the relative calm enjoyed under his rule.

Allawi is in intense negotiations to create a new multi-ethnic secular coalition before the general election.

“If we don’t build a state we will lose,” Allawi warned. “Not just as Iraq, but the region as a whole and Europe should say goodbye to stability and so should the United States. Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorists.

“My philosophy in fighting is to isolate the hardcore Islamists. If you isolate them, it will become very easy to smash them or bring them to justice.”


US Marines and Iraqi soldiers have seized 22 suspected militants in Operation Scimitar, a fourth counter-insurgency sweep of the Euphrates valley in less than a month, the American military said yesterday.

stage one of a civil war? Probable.

(an aside: how does one define these stages?? At what point can one say the crisis has reached "Civil war" proportions. What is the criteria for defining these levels of disorder??)

Seems that Allawi might have a much better sense of what is taking place there , than the bush cabal.

the bush cabal is making history alright........and the chapters are feverishly being written in blood. This invasion has already set off repercussions in other areas.....(most recent London)....and the consequences of this INSANITY are only starting to unfold.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

By FRANK GRIFFITHS, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 5 minutes ago



BAGHDAD, Iraq - A man strapped with explosives blew himself up at an Iraqi military recruiting center in Baghdad as suicide bombers attacked five times in Iraq on Sunday, killing at least 40 people and breaking a relative lull in violence in recent days.



The attacks pushed the death count to over 1,500 people killed in violence since April 28, when Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari announced his Shiite- and Kurd-dominated government in a country under attack from an insurgency led by Iraq's Sunni Arab minority.

At least 14 other people were killed in attacks elsewhere overnight and into Sunday, and the body of kidnapped Iraqi karate association chief Ali Shakir was found floating in the Tigris river southeast of Baghdad.

In the deadliest blast Sunday, a suicide bomber blew himself up at an Iraqi military recruiting center at Muthana airfield near central Baghdad, killing 25 people and wounding 47, according to the U.S. military and hospital officials.

The explosion occurred just before 9 a.m. as about 400 would-be recruits were crowded outside the gate of the center, which had been hit several times before by suicide attackers.

In February, a suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowd outside the recruiting center, killing 21 people and wounding 27.

The Iraqi Islamic Party — the country's largest Sunni political party — denounced Sunday's attack, saying "dozens of innocent Iraqis pay the price for these acts that we strongly condemn."

In the northern city of Mosul, a suicide car bomber rammed into a police convoy carrying Brig. Gen. Salim Salih Meshaal, killing four policemen and wounding three, police said. Meshaal was not injured.

A suicide car bomb also exploded in Kirkuk, killing at least four civilians and wounding 15, police said. The attack occurred on a highway near a hospital and municipal building and the force of the blast toppled a few trees and shattered windows in surrounding buildings.

The bomber used a Mercedes Benz and the target appeared to be civilians because no military or police convoys were nearby, authorities said. Most of the casualties were people headed to Kirkuk General Hospital, police said. Three of the wounded were hospital employees.

U.S. troops also blew up a car parked nearby rigged with a bomb apparently intended to cause more casualties as security forces arrived at the scene of the first blast.

A third car bomb was found near the bus station in Kirkuk, 180 miles north of Baghdad, and authorities evacuated the area while police said they were looking for two other car bombs in the oil-rich city.

In the capital, a roadside bomb struck a U.S. military convoy of six Humvees in the southeastern al-Rashid district Sunday, wounding five soldiers, said Sgt. 1st Class David Abrams, a Task Force Baghdad spokesman. They were taken to a military hospital in stable condition. Also Sunday, two suicide car bombers killed at least seven Iraqi customs officials along the Syrian border, the U.S. military said, forcing the temporary closure of the checkpoint.

The explosions occurred around 2:20 p.m. at the Walid border crossing point, said Marine Capt. Jeffrey Pool, a spokesman for U.S. troops in the western region of Anbar. He did not provide further details.

The porous Syrian border is considered the main entryway into Iraq for foreign fighters.

U.S. troops closed the border checkpoint on the Iraqi side after the blasts and authorities turned back 300 Iraqis trying to enter from Syria, according to a Syrian source who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

There are three legal border-crossing points between Syria and Iraq. The checkpoint at the frontier town of Qaim, however, has been closed for about a year for security reasons.

Other violence overnight and into Sunday killed at least 14 others in Iraq, including a Shiite family of eight killed in their sleep, a police colonel shot in Baghdad, two other policeman killed in the capital, a security official in Kirkuk and a civilian in Baghdad.

Masked gunmen also killed Ahmed Hassan, a member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, in front of his home in Mosul, said Abdul Ghani Botani, a KDP spokesman in Mosul.

The prime minister, meanwhile, held a news conference to salve relations with Egypt after comments made by Iraq's government spokesman that top Egyptian diplomat Ihab al-Sherif was likely on his way to meet with insurgents when he was abducted last week.

Witnesses have said al-Sherif was kidnapped while alone buying a newspaper in Baghdad a week ago. Al-Qaida in Iraq later claimed in a Web posting that it had killed the envoy.

"I don't have any information that the late Ihab al-Sherif has conducted a dialogue or was involved in any dialogue or any meeting," al-Jaafari said. "If what's being reported about an official comment is related to me, then I'm categorically denying that."

On Saturday, Egypt had demanded an explanation from Iraq.

Al-Sherif's abduction and attacks against Pakistani and Bahraini envoys have sent shockwaves through the diplomatic community in Iraq and raised concerns about a possible exodus of diplomats, especially Arab delegations. But the king of neighboring Jordan said the country would not bow to fears and would send its ambassador to Iraq soon.

Shakir, the Iraqi karate association chief, was abducted Thursday in Latifiyah, about 20 miles south of Baghdad. His body was found with several gunshot wounds in the city of Kut the following day, police Capt. Muthana Khalid Ali said.

It was not known why Shakir, a 38-year-old former Iraq karate and judo champion, was taken. Hundreds of Iraqis have been abducted during the last two years — some by insurgents for political and sectarian reasons and some by criminal gangs for ransom

 

[moghrabi]

WE WERE RIGHT. THEY LIED!

http://www.ericblumrich.com/right.html

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: US Invasion of Iraq-Updates

WE WERE RIGHT. THEY LIED!

http://www.ericblumrich.com/right.html

when one listens to the bush lies again......as he himself said them .......and gosh , with such "religious" conviction.........it is enough to make one sick.

What is an interesting outcome of this....is that it is apparent that many in the US support such illegal, immoral, unethical -even barbaric ......conduct. So what does it say about this population???

Then they wonder about the degree of 'anti americanism " that exists today. :roll: Either , as a group , they are not very intelligent, or have been so brainwashed ......they don't know any better. (or want to ) Very sad.

 

[I think not]

U.S. May Begin Iraq Troop Drawdown in '06

 

[mrmom2]

I guess there done and Won the peace Huh?

 

[Jo Canadian]

U.S. May Begin Iraq Troop Drawdown in '06

:wink: Ah, just in time for the pre election election. I wonder if the Iraqi resistance will allow it to be easy enough to accomplish without hurting voters decisions?

Only time will tell.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Report: US war has killed 39,000 Iraqis


Monday 11 July 2005, 23:31 Makka Time, 20:31 GMT


Some 1937 soldiers of the US-led forces have been killed



Related:
Over 100,000 Iraqi deaths since war



Tools:
Email Article
Print Article
Send Your Feedback



Some 39,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since the US-led invasion in 2003, a figure considerably higher than previous estimates, according to a Swiss institute report.


The public database, Iraqi Body Count, by comparison, estimates that between 22,787 and 25,814 Iraqi civilians have died since the March 2003 invasion, based on reports from at least two media sources.



No official estimates of Iraqi casualties from the war have been issued, although military deaths from the US-led forces are closely tracked and now total 1937.



The new estimate was compiled by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies and published in its latest annual small arms survey, released at a UN news conference on Monday.



Under-reported deaths



It builds on a study published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, last October, which concluded that there had been 100,000 "excess deaths" in Iraq from all causes since March 2003. That figure was derived by conducting surveys of Iraqi mortality data during the war and comparing the results to similar data collected before the war.



Britain's government had rejected The Lancet's conclusions shortly after their publication.



The Swiss institute said it arrived at its estimate of Iraqi deaths resulting solely from either combat or armed violence by re-examining the raw data gathered for the Lancet study and classifying the cause of death when it could.




Conflict deaths from small arms
are largely under-reported


Its 2005 small arms survey generally concludes that conflict deaths from small arms have been vastly under-reported in the past, not just in Iraq but around the globe.



The total number of direct victims of such weapons likely totalled 80,000 to 108,000 during 2003, for example, compared to earlier estimates by other researchers of 27,000 to 51,000 deaths from small arms that year.



Inaccurate


The undercounting is due mainly to a paucity of hard data and an over-reliance by analysts on estimates based on government and media accounts of wars, "which are often inaccurate," according to the 2005 survey.



The number of indirect deaths around the world that can be blamed on small arms has also been underestimated, as these types of weapons typically trigger significant social disruption that leads to malnutrition, starvation, and death from preventable disease, according to the survey.



Depending on the nature of the conflict, small arms cause between 60% and 90% of all direct war deaths, the study said.



Following a formula developed at the United Nations, the small arms survey covers a broad range of hand-held arms, ranging from pistols and rifles to military-style machine guns, small mortars and portable anti-tank systems.



Small arms




The small arms survey covered a
broad range of hand-held arms


The survey's release coincided with the opening of a weeklong UN conference intended to assess progress on a UN action plan for cracking down on the illicit global trade in small arms, adopted in 2001.



While worldwide public attention is riveted on the devastating potential of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, small arms typically carried by a single individual "are the real weapons of mass destruction," said Ambassador Pasi Patokallio of Finland, the conference's chairman.



Heavy concentrations of small arms in a region are often enough to fuel a conflict, the small arms survey said.



In the tense Middle East, for example, private gun ownership is widespread and on the rise, and "representatives of several governments have expressed concern that gun violence is becoming a major threat to public safety and a source of regional instability," the survey reported.



It estimated that 45 million to 90 million small arms were in the hands of civilians across that region.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

As America Sinks Into the Mud, Iraq's Neighbors Breathe a Sigh of Relief

Writing from London, the writer explains that Iraq's neighbors, either actively or passively, have been working against the Americans due to the heavy-handed way in which Washington has gone about its experiment in democracy in Baghdad.

By Salah Al-Qallab - Edited By Rob Gibran

07/11/05 "Translated From Arabic" - - The Americans, and some Iraqis, have accused Iraq’s neighbors of interfering in its internal affairs and of looking to ensnare Washington in a quagmire similar to their famous predicament in Vietnam. This, the accusers say, is because neighboring countries are worried that they will be infected with the virus of change and democracy, and because they fear that military and political stability in Iraq would encourage the United States to move its experiment to another Middle East nation.

Most of Iraq’s neighbors had different and conflicting positions with regard to the new war that began in March 2003. But all were in agreement that Washington’s task should not be made easy, that their victory should not come cheap, and to prevent the Americans from deploying to a new country in the region, they should be buried up to their necks in the Iraqi “swamp.”

KILLING TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE

There is no doubt that all of the region’s nations were happy that Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled, and that they all supported his removal. But some of these neighbors were also pleased that this war would allow them to kill two birds with one stone:

--The elimination of a reckless, bloody regime that has been a source of fear and instability for many years.

--The blocking of the plans and aspirations of the “fools” in the U.S. administration, who think that their country is the new Roman Empire, running the world from one end to the other as if it were the White House’s backyard.

Some of Iraq’s neighbors provided no real support to the forced of instability in that country. But these same countries felt immense relief when American forces started to sink into the Iraqi mud, especially when the “fools” in the U.S. administration made it clear that these very same countries are next on the list for change in the region. Now that it looks as though Washington has gotten itself into a terrible mess and won’t likely get out of it in the near future, these countries are less frightened that America’s dream of moving from square one to square two on the Middle East chessboard will happen soon.

IRAQ AS BATTLEFIELD

Other countries in the region, however, have discovered that attack is the best defense, and that it is safer and more effective for them to wage their anticipated war with the Americans on Iraqi soil, and not on their own land. Thus, and from the moment when U.S. forces started to invade Iraq, these countries have resorted to any means at their disposal to intervene in Iraq’s internal affairs in any shape or form.

The Americans should have realized this before sending their forces to occupy Iraq. It is illogical to expect countries like Syria and Iran to stand by meekly and wait for American forces to arrive at the center of their capitals. This is especially true after all of the thoughtless and idiotic threats uttered by the “fools” in the U.S. administration (such as Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, before they were bloodied by the subsequent war), who said that they were coming to affect regional change and not just change to a single country.

No one could possibly have convinced Iran or Syria not to seek to fight the United States on Iraqi soil, and to wait patiently with an attitude of sportsmanship and fair play for the American knife to slit their throats. It was the responsibility of the “smart” people in the U.S. administration to realize the dangerous nature of the threats some of their colleagues were uttering. These threats put all of the region’s countries on maximum alert, some of them felt targeted, and most would not stand idly by waiting for a fate similar to Saddam’s.

Some Iraqis believe that the position taken by some of its neighbors is a result of a fear of Iraqi’s experiment with democracy. While it’s true that some of these countries were terrified at seeing Saddam’s regime fall under the chains of American tanks and his statues toppled by U.S. soldiers, the United States made the mistake of not keeping its mouth shut and letting matters flow naturally, without threats and saber rattling. This would have allowed Washington to show the peoples of the region (after stabilizating Iraq’s security situation) a true experiment in democracy, and not a deformed one.

Had the U.S. administration wisely kept silent and let matters flow naturally, working on developing a mature “Iraqi-democratic experiment” without noise-making and fist-shaking at the faces of the region’s regimes, leaders and peoples, then it is certain that the hostile mobilization and rejection of the region would never have occurred. It is also certain that this “experiment in democracy” would have seeped smoothly into neighboring countries, where the region’s peoples would have welcomed it with open arms, and would have protected and defended it against the tyranny of the present rulers.

The biggest mistake the Americans committed was to give the region’s people (not to mention the regimes) the impression that democracy was coming on the back of their tanks, and that they will impose this democracy on the region in the same way that they forced it on the Iraqis. Because of this, all the peoples and regimes in the region have taken a position of self-defense, either by keeping silent and compliant, or by being vocal and unyielding. But both positions had a single goal: To sink the Americans in the Iraqi mud, and to bury them and their “democracy” with them.

Due to the Americans’ deadly mistakes, the region and its inhabitants no longer look at the “Iraqi experiment” as one worth repeating. Even for those who were (and still) favored the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime, this experiment has become a glaring example of chaos, infighting, and the indiscriminate shedding of innocent people’s blood. Neighboring countries no longer fear that Iraq will export democracy to them, but now are worried that Iraq will turn into another Afghanistan and end up exporting terrorism in the guise of a thousand “Qaeda” and a hundred thousand Osama bin Ladens.

It is true that some of the region’s regimes feared being infected by Iraqi democracy, were things to have stabilized. They also feared that American tanks were rolling in under the banner of forced change. But what is also true is that now, these regimes and their peoples have become even more frightened that the Iraqi situation will get worse than it is today. This will lead to an Iraq that, far from being a model of democracy, is a den of terror more potent and destructive even the Taliban regime with Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda.

 

[Jo Canadian]

:x I'm no fan on the US and Iraq issues. But the people involved in shit like this seem only intent on getting the Americans out, and not too keen on getting support from their own people to advance their own hold on the land through governance.

Children die in Baghdad car bomb

At least 26 Iraqis, almost all of them children, have been killed by a suicide car bombing in south-eastern Baghdad.
A US soldier is also said to have died in the blast. Another three US soldiers are reported to have been injured.

A car drove up to a US army vehicle and blew up as troops gave sweets to the children, a witness said.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: US Invasion of Iraq-U

Why are soldiers giving candy to children in a place where they know such attacks are common?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/iraq-j14.shtml

 

[Ocean Breeze]

BAGHDAD, July 12, 2005 -- An Iraqi humanitarian organization is reporting that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion began in March 2003.

Mafkarat al-Islam reported that chairman of the 'Iraqiyun humanitarian organization in Baghdad, Dr. Hatim al-'Alwani, said that the toll includes everyone who has been killed since that time, adding that 55 percent of those killed have been women and children aged 12 and under.

'Iraqiyun obtained data from relatives and families of the deceased, as well as from Iraqi hospitals in all the country's provinces. The 128,000 figure only includes those whose relatives have been informed of their deaths and does not include those were abducted, assassinated or simply disappeared.

The number includes those who died during the U.S. assaults on al-Fallujah and al-Qa'im. 'Iraqiyun's figures conflict with the Iraqi Body Count public database compiled by Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies. According to the Graduate Institute of International Studies' database, 39,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since March 2003. No official estimates of Iraqi casualties from the war have been issued by the Pentagon, which insists that it does not do "body counts." The Washington Post on July 12 reported that U.S. military deaths in Iraq now total 1,755.

"we don't do body counts"........???? Yet they do body counts on US troops that have been killed. Is a US life more important than an Iraqi life??? Is that the conclusion one is to make from that insane remark???

but this kind of "thinking" is asking for trouble......as now the US cannot counter the statistics coming out of humanitarian organizataions about the death toll. The US has kept no data.....so they don't have any position to stand on.