Thread: Iraq News

Oh joy.... we are on post 600. OP opened, 19-10-2006 .

Projection for the number of posts before the war ends should be somewhere in the ballpark of, let's see...100 years*400 per year. 40,000!! Surely an all time TD record.

Originally Posted by Texpat

I wouldn't be against a rapid and wholesale pullout and subsequent massive genocide.

Your a class act.

with each passing day it's becoming more clear how much of a failure the troop escalation (you may know it as 'the surge') was.

even beyond the diplomatic goals that have never been reached, now the military aspect is also falling apart. yesterday 50 iraqis were blown to bits.....and this came on the heels of 60 others that were killed by a bomber earlier in the week.

but as cheney would say....."so?".

Um ... so. If they chose to kill and maim their countrymen (as they did without CNN and BBCs prying eyes for so many years) seems like an internal affair. As it was then. Business as usual.

Next?

Yeah, much

iraq news? well it's not really news because it's been going on for years, but...it seems like somebody needs to get PAID.

Muqtada al-Sadr gave a "final warning" to the government Saturday to halt a U.S.-Iraqi crackdown against his followers or he would declare "open war until liberation."

Iraqi cleric threatens 'open war' - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

nice.

a final warning.

this fiasco has certainly done wonders for the rep. of the US military.

hey, how's that 'final push' coming along?

taken from the same link....

al-Qaida in Iraq announced a one-month offensive against U.S. troops. In a new audiotape released on a militant Web site, a man claiming to be the purported leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, called on followers to attack U.S. soldiers

who will be the last soldier to die for this mistake?

Manipulation of the media:

April. 19, 2008


NEW YORK - Many U.S. military analysts used as commentators on Iraq by television networks have been groomed by the Pentagon, leaving some feeling they were manipulated to report favorably on the Bush administration, The New York Times said in Sunday editions.

A Times report examining ties between the Bush administration and former senior officers who acted as paid TV analysts said they got private briefings, trips and access to classified intelligence meant to influence their comments.

"Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks," the newspaper said.

entire: NYT: U.S. military groomed TV analysts - Military - MSNBC.com

Brainwashed robots....

Hey, the US is trying to play Iraqi off against Iraqi in order to gain control over Iraqi government. That prospect looks pretty dim for the foreseeable future. One of the main reasons for this is the US occupation of Iraq which most Iraqis resent.

Once the Yanks retreat and butt out it will create another power vacuum resulting in some more civil war which should be over relatively quickly (a year or two), and result in some form of stable government. Best thing the Yanks can do is get the fark out of there and let the country get on with it.

Bush and his Neo-Con mates thought it was going to be a walkover and now they are in so deep they are prepared to gamble sending their own country broke fighting a war that ends up costing much, much more than the spoils it was promised to return.

Flawed gutless logic. Nothing would make US-haters happier than to see the US leave under those conditions.

(If you can't be noble yourself, deride those who are)

I don't disagree this mess cost way too much to the US -- but the spoils of a stabilized region will profit everyone. Sounds pretty unselfish to me. You don't have to thank us.

Originally Posted by Texpat

gutless

that's rich coming from you. remind us again when you quit the military.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Nothing would make US-haters happier than to see the US leave under those conditions.

is this what guides your idea of an effective foreign policy?
it's too late, the "US-haters" already know the US lost in iraq....or do you think you're the only one with the keen insight to the fact that the "mess has cost the US too much"? it's exactly this type of jr. high mentality that is behind the idiocy of not talking to our 'enemies'.

Originally Posted by Texpat

You don't have to thank us.

first of all, who's this 'us' you're referring to. you're in thailand, right?

secondly, you're more delusional than previously thought if you think the US is deserving of thanks.

get a grip.

Whassa matter Ray baby? Can't get things to go your way?

Quit yer whining.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Whassa matter Ray baby? Can't get things to go your way? Quit yer whining.

good retort.

Originally Posted by Texpat

but the spoils of a stabilized region will profit everyone. Sounds pretty unselfish to me. You don't have to thank us.

Don't worry, we won't. We'll be thanking Iran

Perhaps -- but whatever the case, most of the civilized world will have done fuckall toward its cause. And we all know who had done the heavy lifting.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Perhaps -- but whatever the case, most of the civilized world will have done fuckall toward its cause. And we all know who had done the heavy lifting.

Who's done the heavy lifting? Nobody.

Look at all of the countries in the world - were there is no oil - and see who has done any heavy lifting.

1. The US is actually supporting the Badr Organization. A Shiite
group that wants to secede from Iraq and become independent in the
Basra region. Lots of oil and port access. Iran will be a direct
and large influence if this region is ever able to break off and
become independent.

The Badr Organization is the militia for ISCI, the Islamic Supreme
Council in Iraq (Shiite). ISCI is in the al-Maliki (Dawa party)
coalition) in the current Iraqi government that the US is supporting.

2. Sayyid Moqtada al-Sadr supports a single Iraqi nation-state, with
a federalist government at the center in Baghdad. The USA and
al-Maliki is currently fighting against al-Sadr. al-Sadr withdrew
from the Iraqi government last year.

I thought Iran was bad. It would be a comedy if it wasn't such a
mess and so foolish.

Shot by Both SidesIran is outsmarting us in Iraq.

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008, at 5:07 PM ET Iraqi soldiers stand under a poster of Moqtada al-Sadr

Which is it: Are the Iranians extraordinarily clever, or are we extraordinarily dim? Certainly, when it comes to pursuing our respective interests in Iraq, they seem to be thinking and acting strategically, while we seem not to be.
A fascinating story in the April 21 New York Times by James Glanz and Alissa J. Rubin reveals that in the battle for Basra—the major port city of southern Iraq—the United States and Iran are on the same side. Yet the Bush administration is doing nothing to gain leverage from this convergence.


Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched his troop offensive in Basra province last month in an attempt to crush the militia of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr. President George W. Bush—who backed Maliki's move, first with air power, then with armor and special-operations forces—described Sadr's militia men as Iranian-backed thugs.

He might have been right about "thugs," though several analysts (including this one) noted at the time that the rival Shiite militia backing Maliki—known as the Badr Organization, whose men fought alongside the Iraqi army—had ties to Iran as well.


It is now clear that the Badr Organization's ties to Iran are not merely as close as Sadr's; they are much closer. In fact, as the Times reports, Iran's ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, expressed full support for Maliki's offensive in Basra and denounced Sadr's fighters as "outlaws."


It is reasonable to ask what the hell is going on here.



President Bush assisted Maliki's offensive as a campaign against Iranian-backed extremists. Now it turns out the Iranians are backing Maliki.


Much of the confusion is dispelled when you consider that the battle for Basra is not so much a military contest between the Iraqi government and outlaw rebels as a power struggle between rival Shiite mafias.


In this sense, Maliki is joined at the hip to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a political party that used to be known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The Badr Organization is this party's militia. (It is integrating itself with the Iraqi army, but it's unclear whether this means that the militia is becoming more like a national army or that the national army is becoming more like a militia.)


The leaders of SCIRI, now ISCI, are tied to Iran in two ways. First, during Saddam Hussein's reign, they spent many years exiled in Iran. Second, and more to the point, their political agenda—whether by design or coincidence—dovetails with Iran's.


ISCI advocates the creation of a semiautonomous super-region incorporating all nine provinces of oil-rich southern Iraq—a Shiite enclave similar to the Kurdish enclave in Iraq's three northern provinces. Iran's leaders also like this idea because they think that such a large, ethnically homogenous region would give them the best chance to influence and possibly control the southern territories, Iraq's Shiite politics, and, therefore—by dint of the country's Shiite majority—Iraqi politics generally.


Muqtada Sadr, on the other hand, rejects the idea of a super-region. He has grander ambitions to control all of Iraq from a central government—a vaster, more turbulent entity, which the Iranians would have a harder time handling. (They probably wouldn't have such an easy time manipulating a southern super-region, either, but at least they'd have an entry point.)


What may well have prompted last month's offensive is that Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, is gaining strength in Basra. As a result, it is widely believed that Sadr's party might win there in this fall's provincial elections—a development that would deal a crushing blow to ISCI, weaken Maliki's standing in Iraq's second-largest city, and, perhaps, put an end to the dream of a southern super-region. Hence the desire to crush Sadr's gangs in Basra, and thus the base of his political support there, before it's too late.


Maliki managed to pull Bush into the conflict because Sadr vociferously opposes any continued U.S. military presence in Iraq, and—until last year, when he declared a cease-fire—his militiamen have devoted a lot of effort to killing American soldiers. By contrast, ISCI's fighters have not posed a direct threat.


Since the start of the offensive in Basra, Sadr's Mahdi Army has resumed shooting at American soldiers in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad—and, interestingly, in that fight, the Iranians are supporting Sadr.


In other words, we find ourselves lassoed into an armed intra-Shiite power struggle on two fronts—and the Iranians are positioned to benefit from one or both contests, no matter whether the side we're backing wins or loses.


So, again: Are they really good at this game, or are we simply out of our element?
One thing is for sure: It is time to start talking with the Iranians. First, they control too many of the pieces for us not to engage them diplomatically. Second, it turns out that we do have some common interests (for instance, crushing Sadr in Basra). Might it be possible to leverage those interests to induce cooperation, or extract concessions, in other realms where we have differences? Third, Maliki clearly has no qualms about talking with the Iranians when it suits his purposes. Why should we?


Finally, there is so much to discuss with Iran that unless we're at war with each other (and nobody has suggested that we are), it's stupid—unfathomably self-destructive—not to make a serious effort

Link: How Iran is outsmarting us in Iraq. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine

Originally Posted by Milkman

One thing is for sure: It is time to start talking with the Iranians. First, they control too many of the pieces for us not to engage them diplomatically. Second, it turns out that we do have some common interests (for instance, crushing Sadr in Basra). Might it be possible to leverage those interests to induce cooperation, or extract concessions, in other realms where we have differences? Third, Maliki clearly has no qualms about talking with the Iranians when it suits his purposes. Why should we?

this is so spot on. one has to wonder if there is another reason (that the american public is not being told), why the US govt won't have talks with iran. as it stands, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

great line from 'no country for old men'....."if this isn't a mess, it will do 'til the real mess gets here".

Originally Posted by raycarey

why the US govt won't have talks with iran.

We do not negotiate with terrorists!!! How many times do you have to be told.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by raycarey

why the US govt won't have talks with iran.

We do not negotiate with terrorists!!!

I do. Their asking price for guns and explosives, not to mention assassinations and suicide bombings, is outrageous. Negotiation always gets me a good discount.

Below is a poll stating that 63% of Americans think invading Iraq was a mistake. (If you cannot see the poll, please post and say so.) This does mean that 37% think it was the right thing to do. Interesting how in the beginning there was so much support for overthrowing the Iraqi Hussein government, but over time the opinion has changed. Many likely thought it would be easy. Use the military. Use force. Everything will fall into place. This likely shows a lack of historcal knowledge on the part of Americans.

Link: Opposition to Iraq War Reaches New High

Originally Posted by Milkman

This likely shows a lack of historcal knowledge on the part of Americans.

Some of that I would guess but had it not been for all those WMDs and terrorist training camps I doubt enthusiasm for war would have been very high.

^ america hater.

And this is what we are fighting to, er, protect:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=562358&in_page_id=1770&ct= 5

Teenage Iraqi girl who fell in love with BRITISH soldier is murdered by her own father in honour killing




Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, was killed by her father after falling in love with a British soldier



A teenage Iraqi girl who fell in love with a British soldier when he was in Basra was murdered by her father in an "honour killing", it was revealed today.

Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, was suffocated and then hacked at with a knife after her family discovered she was friends with the 22-year-old soldier who she knew only as Paul.

The pair first met when Rand was working on an aid project for displaced families but it is thought the soldier is unaware of the girl's fate.

She was stamped on, suffocated and stabbed - leaving her with puncture wounds all over her body, including her face.

Her own mother, Leila Hussein, has spoken out about the crime, revealing how her husband called out that he was cleansing "his honour" as he carried out the murder.

She told the Observer he was arrested after the brutal murder but was released without charge two hours later because it was an "honour killing".

"He was released two hours later because it was an 'honour killing'. And unfortunately that is something to be proud of for any Iraqi man," she told the paper.

He was released two hours later because it was an 'honour killing'

sounds reasonable.