American Occupation Kills 63 In Baghdad

[BayLee]

Car bombs kill 63 in Baghdad

More than 139 people also wounded in three blasts

Feb 18, 2007 08:05 PM

Brian Murphy

associated press

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Militants struck back Sunday in their first major blow against a U.S.-led security clampdown in Baghdad with car bombings that killed at least 63 people, left scores injured and sent a grim message to officials boasting that extremist factions were on the run.

[guyser]

How does "American Occupation Kills 63 In Baghdad" = " Militants struck back Sunday in their first major blow against a U.S.-led security clampdown in Baghdad with car bombings that killed at least 63 people, "

Open a new post to see what someone might have as an opinion or some discussion on a matter, then ....damn look who it is, with absolutely NOTHING to say, no opinion no ideas presented , just a post with a grossly misleading headline that has nothing to do with the quoted article , and you wonder why you are a continual target for abuse.

Novel idea for you, try honesty next time.

[Canadian Blue]

I don't really get it either, but since it wasn't American's, it somehow is the American's fault. Instead of blaming the people who actually killed the people, you shift the blame to the American's.

[Borg]

I don't really get it either, but since it wasn't American's, it somehow is the American's fault. Instead of blaming the people who actually killed the people, you shift the blame to the American's.

I have noticed over the past few years it is always the fault of the Yanks or the fault of the soldier or the fault of ......

I wonder when someone is going to say it is the frigging muslims killing their own people - creating terror and not giving a rats ass who dies as long as someone dies - all for the sake of the fact that one group has been removed from a position of power and another having been inserted.

Oh, wait a minute - I suppose we could blame the Yanks for this. Or perhaps the Brits or perhaps the Poles or perhaps ....

But then again the old party in power had a nasty habit of killing people simply to hold on to that power.

Perhaps we should simply set back and tell them they have three weeks to do all the killing they can - and those left standing will be the ones negotiations will be held with.

Wait a minute - I am sure someone will think this is a great idea and someone else will think it is schitzen.

What the hell - let them off each other - what is a few extra dead in the middle of the road. Happened when saddam was there and it happens now.

What has really changed?

One thing for certain - the people doing the killing in big numbers are not soldiers and the people doing the killing do not give a damn about their own countrymen.

The title is not only misleading, it is shameful. Life is cheap in the sand boxes of the world and power is often maintained by violence. They live very differently than we do - might is respected and weakness is pounced upon.

Borg

Borg

[B. Max]

Typical left wing screw balls and their anti Americanism.

[Canadian Blue]

Well the American's certainly have been incompetent in their handling of Iraq. I'm sure that upon seeing the all of the looting going on and civil unrest after the American's conquered certainly shouldn't have been a good sign.

Right now the only reasonable solution I can find, because to me simply leaving is not a good solution, is to perhaps divide the country into three seperate states. I don't see the civil unrest dying down anytime soon in the next decade unless something drastic happens.

[newbie]

I don't see the civil unrest dying down anytime soon in the next decade unless something drastic happens.

Gee, how will we know what happens until the U.S. pulls out? The U.S. has been wrong on just about everything else in Iraq. Why take their opinion on what may happen if they withdraw?

[Canadian Blue]

Well, I'm sure that once the American's leave all Iraqi's will join in a group hug and sing kumbaya. However I highly doubt it, especially with the two rival groups who hate each other. Without any solution, Iraq could simply become much, much, worse. I'm basing this on history with regards to what has happened in other countries.

However, I think it would be more rational to see if we could bring about some kind of resolution to reduce the conflict. If anybody think's that Iraq will be more peaceful when the American's leave, I think that argument has no merit to it. The two groups will continue to fight each other, and we will simply have more bloodshed.

Rwanda didn't really improve once the Belgian's pulled out of the conflict.

BTW, I'm not taking their opinion on anything, I'm forming my own opinion's based on reports from that country.

[Borg]

Newbie - if the statement you made is in jest - fine.

If it is made in serious thought mode - you are out of touch.

You watch the slaughter begin when and if the soldiers leave. Examples of this exist throughout time.

Life is cheap in the sand box - you have no idea how cheap - no one is safe unless well armed and at least one war lord likes you. Even that guarantees nothing but at least you have some help when Ali comes knocking to take your family for a "stroll".

As for partitioning as per CB - it has merit unfotunately there are folks on the borders of Iraq that might not like that - it would make for an interesting scenario though.

Borg

I don't see the civil unrest dying down anytime soon in the next decade unless something drastic happens.

Gee, how will we know what happens until the U.S. pulls out? The U.S. has been wrong on just about everything else in Iraq. Why take their opinion on what may happen if they withdraw?

[Canadian Blue]

Well we could have problem's similar to the partioning of India and Pakistan. It's an option that's being explored. But if all of the American's do leave Iraq, my concern is what will happen with the country, could we see a situation similar to Cambodia, or Rwanda.

[geoffrey]

The terrorists should stop attacking their own people. Racial warfare between the Sunnis and Shi'a is only going to end when one sect is completely elimination.

That is what your in fact advocating by pulling out of Iraq before an effective Iraqi defense force is established.

Why are some people so ignorant of reality to believe that if you take the police out of a gangwar, the bodycount will decrease?

[Black Dog]

The terrorists should stop attacking their own people. Racial warfare between the Sunnis and Shi'a is only going to end when one sect is completely elimination.

That is what your in fact advocating by pulling out of Iraq before an effective Iraqi defense force is established.

Why are some people so ignorant of reality to believe that if you take the police out of a gangwar, the bodycount will decrease?

Comments like this are quickly assuming the status of boilerplate. It's never a bad idea to question your assumptions.

...if it was foolish to accept the best-case assumptions that led us to invade Iraq, it’s also foolish not to question the worst-case assumptions that undergird arguments for staying. Is it possible that a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces will lead to a dramatic worsening of the situation? Of course it is, just as it’s possible that maintaining or escalating troops there could fuel the unrest. But it’s also worth considering the possibility that the worst may not happen: What if the doomsayers are wrong?

...

....it’s hard to find an analysis of the Iraq crisis that doesn’t predict an expanded Sunni-Shiite war once the United States departs. But let’s look at the countervailing factors—and there are many.

First, the United States is doing little, if anything, to restrain ethnic cleansing, either in Baghdad neighborhoods or Sunni and Shiite enclaves surrounding the capital. Indeed, under its current policy, the United States is arming and training one side in a civil war by bolstering the Shiite-controlled army and police.

...

Second, although battle lines are hardening and militias on both sides are becoming self-sustaining, the civil war is limited by physical constraints.

...

A third fear is that Iraq’s neighbors will support their proxies in this fight. Indeed, they probably will—but within limits. Iran, which is already assisting various Shiite parties (especially the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq), would continue to do so. And Sunni Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan would line up behind Iraq’s Sunnis. Even so, neither Shiite Iran nor the Sunni Arab countries would likely risk a regional conflagration by providing their Iraqi proxies with the heavy weapons that would enable them to wage offensive operations in each other’s heartland.

The only power that could qualitatively worsen Iraq’s sectarian civil war is the United States.

...

Thus, even if we assume that Iraq’s parties cannot achieve some sort of reconciliation as the United States withdraws, an American pullout is hardly guaranteed to unleash unbridled chaos. On the contrary, each year since 2003 that American troops have remained in Iraq, the violence has escalated steadily.

This guy's a little bit more optimistic than I, but he makes some good points. But the big question, one I've asked repeatedly, is this: what makes you think the U.S. can do anything to prevent a civil war, given that it seems incapable of stopping the violence now?

[noahbody]

The terrorists should stop attacking their own people. Racial warfare between the Sunnis and Shi'a is only going to end when one sect is completely elimination.

That is what your in fact advocating by pulling out of Iraq before an effective Iraqi defense force is established.

Why are some people so ignorant of reality to believe that if you take the police out of a gangwar, the bodycount will decrease?

Right. The Sunnis and SHi'a will never make good bedfellows. Best create two states or have Jack Layton go over there and fix everything.

[White Doors]

Well his moustache DOES have supernatural powers.

[Catchme]

"

If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people." So said President Bush on November 30, 2005, refining his earlier call to "bring them on." Jihadist terrorists, the administration’s argument went, would be drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame, and would perish there rather than wreak havoc elsewhere in the world.

The president’s argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

The administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism: implications for the United States," circulated within the government in April 2006 and partially declassified in October, states that "the Iraq War has become the ‘cause celebre’ for jihadists...and is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2...ml?welcome=true

[geoffrey]

Gee, how will we know what happens until the U.S. pulls out? The U.S. has been wrong on just about everything else in Iraq. Why take their opinion on what may happen if they withdraw?

I hear this argument so often from the left (or more proper the 'leave 'em to fight it out' crowd), and I must say it highlights the irrationallity of their position. It's referred to in debate/logic as a 'package deal argument' and it's completely invalid.

Deal with the argument. You can't extrapolate past error to every possible event in the future.

So tell me, if you have a gang war between two rival gangs, will removing the police from the city save more lives?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear geoffrey,

So tell me, if you have a gang war between two rival gangs, will removing the police from the city save more lives?

Possibly. I believe it was von Clausewitz who said, "The kindest thing we can do for our enemies is to defeat them quickly" (or something like that). The question is really, will escalation shorten the duration? The question becomes more amoral if you intend to have one of the rival gangs be in control after the smoke clears anyway.

From a math standpoint...(there is a lottery somewhere in Canada called 'millionaire for life'...you could win 25 million, paid out at 1 million a year for 25 years, or you can take a 17 million upfront payout...which is the better deal?) If you are betting lives, is it better to lose the 17 million right away, or 25 million ovewr a period of time? Which would you choose?

[geoffrey]

From a math standpoint...(there is a lottery somewhere in Canada called 'millionaire for life'...you could win 25 million, paid out at 1 million a year for 25 years, or you can take a 17 million upfront payout...which is the better deal?) If you are betting lives, is it better to lose the 17 million right away, or 25 million ovewr a period of time? Which would you choose?

I understand your point, but the unfortunate reality is that many of those that die are not involved in the conflict. Until there is a reasonable force in Iraq to protect the innocent people from abuses, the US military will have to do. If your choosing between giving up, letting them fight it out, hoping the duration will be shorter and sticking around and trying to protect the uninvolved, then I say the later needs to be the choice. If everyone getting killed were willful combatants, then I'd say go ahead, pull out tomorrow. But that's simply not the case.

The Iraq war was wrong from the outset, but now that it's happened, we can't turn back that clock. It's time to look at the current situation, ignoring all the politicising, and ask, what is best for Iraqi's today?

And I think what is best is keeping the policeman around, at least until they can train their own.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear geoffrey,

I believe it was von Clausewitz who said, "The kindest thing we can do for our enemies is to defeat them quickly" (or something like that).

I stand corrected, it was General von Moltke who said this...

It's time to look at the current situation, ignoring all the politicising, and ask, what is best for Iraqi's today?

Self determination?