News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq

[Tiassa]

Thin comfort

At least it's merely macabre and not outright morbid.

In the meantime: Chalabi: Saddam is in Iraq (CNews)

NEW YORK (AP) -- Saddam Hussein has been seen north of Baghdad and is paying a bounty for every American soldier killed, the leader of an Iraqi exile group said Tuesday.

Saddam has $1.3 billion US ($1.8 billion Cdn) in cash taken from the Central Bank on March 18, is bent on revenge and believes he can "sit it out and get the Americans going," said Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress.

In Washington, Pentagon officials said Tuesday they had no information that Saddam was alive and offering bounties for killing U.S. troops ....

Also:

- AP, in first nationwide tally of civilian deaths in Iraq war, counts 3,240, but toll is certainly higher (Boston.com)

. . . . The AP's finding: At least 3,240 civilians died throughout the country, including 1,896 in Baghdad. The count is still fragmentary, and the complete number if it is ever tallied is sure to be significantly higher.

Several surveys have looked at civilian casualties within Baghdad, but the AP's is the first attempt to gauge the scale of such deaths from one end of the country to the other, from Mosul in the north to Basra in the south.

The AP count is based on records from 60 of Iraq's 124 hospitals including almost all of the large ones and covers the period between March 20, when the war began, and April 20, when fighting was dying down. AP journalists visited all those hospitals, studying their logs, examining death certificates where available and interviewing officials.

Many of the 64 other hospitals are in small towns and were not visited because they are in dangerous or inaccessible areas. Some hospitals that were visited had incomplete or war-damaged casualty records.

Even if hospital records were complete, they would not tell the full story for this nation of 24 million people. Many dead were never taken to hospitals. They were either buried quickly by their families in accordance with Islamic custom, or lost under rubble.

The AP excluded all counts done by hospitals whose written records did not distinguish between civilian and military dead, which means hundreds, possibly thousands, of victims in Iraq's largest cities and most intense battles aren't reflected in the total . . . .

Well, is this enough blood, Mr. Bush, to "avenge" 9/11?

Are we there yet?

I take it back. There is no thin comfort. There is no comfort in any of it.

Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Can we please stop killing people for stupid reasons?

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[guthrie]

tiassa, I htink it can safely be said htat most of the reasons for killing people are stupid anyhow. period.

PLus now I notice the son of King Feisal of Iraq is back in Iraq, has addressed a crowd of tribal leaders. So whats he going to do? Which way will he go?

Its such a hideous mix, kurds, shi'ites, sunnis, tribes, monarchists, arch-islamists, pro westerners, and the oil. I just hope enough modern influence is upon them that they dont all decide to fight each other to death. Certainly the complexity of their politics over hte next few years will confuse and bedazzle the USA.

 

[Tiassa]

I need a place to put this ... so it goes here

Blix stung by "Pentagon smear" (BBC)

The UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has lashed out at the US Defence Department, saying some "bastards" in Washington tried to undermine him in the run-up to the Iraq war . . . .

. . . . "It was like a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning, an irritant," he said . . . .

. . . . However, he said Washington now viewed the United Nations as an "alien power".

"There are people in this [US] administration who say they don't care if the UN sinks under the East river, and other crude things" . . . .

So Blix goes South Park. Geez ... you don't think the Bush administratin ... oh ... pissed him off ... do you?

Then again, somebody had to say it.

Go Hans. Might as well run with it.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Pollux V]

The AP's finding: At least 3,240 civilians died throughout the country, including 1,896 in Baghdad. The count is still fragmentary, and the complete number if it is ever tallied is sure to be significantly higher

Oh no, Saddam killed that much people in a day! It was justified, silly!

 

[goofyfish]

U-S-A! U-S-A!

“When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive…” – President George W. Bush, September, 2001.

QAIM, Iraq, June 23 -- Ahmed Hamad, a burly shepherd and smuggler, awoke to his mother's shouts. He looked at his watch. It was 1:10 a.m., he recalled. He gazed across a horizon illuminated by destruction, where U.S. aircraft were raining fire on four trucks. About a half-hour later, he said, a missile slammed into his house, killing his sister-in-law and her 1-year-old daughter…

At about 1:30 a.m., as the four trucks burned, the first of about five missiles struck Hamad's brick house, he said. Although everyone was sleeping outside, debris killed his sister-in-law, 20-year-old Hakima Khalil, and her daughter, Maha. Khalil's husband, Mohammed, was wounded in the foot. Hamad, his 24-year-old brother Mahmoud and his mother, Rasmiya Mishaal, 62, were also hurt. Mahmoud suffered the severest injuries, with deep cuts to his back and face. (Full text here)

I wonder when we’ll stop staggering about and throwing windmill punches like a drunk in a saloon. Using five missiles might sound like overkill until you check the score: three pickups, three tractors, one truck, thirteen sheep, two sheep smugglers, a 20 year-old woman and her 1 year-old daughter.

Shit yeah, jackpot! That'll teach them terrorists! Booyah!

:m: Peace.

 

[Tiassa]

It gets worse, you know ....

Veil of Secrecy Around Village Hit in U.S. Raid (NY Times - registration required)

On a desolate panorama of hardtack desert along the Syrian border here, the United States military has cordoned off part of this village, evicted five families whose houses were bombed six days ago and refused to say what is going on.

Two villagers were killed, a young woman, Hakima Khalil, and her infant daughter, Maha, in an aerial assault that began just after 1 a.m. Thursday.

At dusk today, a convoy of more than 20 military transports arrived with earth-moving equipment and pulled into the circle of Bradley fighting vehicles that guard every approach to this sandy knoll littered with broken masonry and bomb-damaged homes.

"Stop right there," said Specialist Arthur Myers of New Jersey. "If you take a picture, I will break your camera."

The attack on the village followed a strike by American Special Forces troops on several vehicles near a Syrian border post five miles east of here. American officials in Washington described what happened as an operation focusing on a convoy of vehicles believed to be carrying senior officials of the former government of Saddam Hussein. It was not clear what they were seeking in this village, however. This stretch of border about 50 miles southwest of the main border crossing point at Qaim is known as a smuggler's haven, and Muger Addib in Arabic means "Wolf's Den." The villagers grow wheat and raise sheep by day, but they are also believed at night to run a brisk smuggling trade in native sheep, which fetch a better price in Syria and Lebanon than they do in Iraq.

Since the end of the military campaign that toppled Mr. Hussein's government, smugglers have also specialized in assisting Iraqi families seeking to leave the country and join relatives abroad across the border. American officials also suspect that former members of Mr. Hussein's government have used remote border crossings like this one to escape occupation forces.

The dirty sheep smugglers ....

Daddy Doggy, what did you do during the war?

I killed a sheep smuggler's daughter when you was still at yer mama's teat!

Is this because Texans are cattle people?

Does it ever seem that the Bush administration's occasions to upset people seem planned and known in advance? I can't shake the feeling that the American reconstruction effort, at least, is intentionally being carried out in such a manner as to force a necessary augmentation of the long-term military commitment to Iraq.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Let's not forget the other colony

Reuters Photo: An Afghan boy pushes a cart loaded with monthly rations received by his widowed mother (in the blue veil) from CARE International in Kabul June 25, 2003. According to CARE, there are at least 10,000 war widows in Kabul, and CARE is providing them with 46 kilograms (101 pounds) of flour, 4 liters of oil, 800 grams of salt and 9 kilograms (20 pounds) of red beans monthly. REUTERS/Arko Datta

Um ... is there a nutritionist in the house?

Help me out here ... what is that for the two of them as opposed to what is that for a mother and how many children?

Edit, or Back to Iraq: Reuters Photo - just one of those to see .... And, to be fair, there is also this photo from Reuters.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Psycho-Cannon]

. . . However, he said Washington now viewed the United Nations as an "alien power".

"There are people in this [US] administration who say they don't care if the UN sinks under the East river, and other crude things" ..

See my post on "Bringing the war home - NGO's"
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24493

They are indeed seeing NGO's and bodies like the UN as not only alien but a "Threat" to "Free market Capatilism" and "American Soverignty" and "Homeland Security".

They are looking for ways to sink them even as we speak.

As for the tragedy of Afghanistan its already forgotten by the people that need to be reminded the most.
No one remeber the Masacers of POW's by US troops and the complacency, even co-operation of US troops in allowing the war lords...sorry Northern Alliance to Kidnap torture and execute both POW's and normal civillians alike.
Has everyone forgotten the British troops testimony already about how 3 times they had Osma Bin Laden cornered and surrounded and 3 times American orders let him go.

You are right Tissa and that these things are too bad to be too many horrible coincidences and accidents i think the USA wants these things to go wrong so that they are attacked and have an excuse to say they need more troops and to stay.
Its like punching someone in the face and then justifying it by saying well he hit me back after i punched him first!!!!!

Also i suppose letting the Heads go, OBL and SH, they can keep on blaming them for everything that goes wrong and keep the fear cycling so even if they are captured or killed they won't ever admit it.

In fact the Conservative party in the UK said exactly that on the BBC i belive it was last night when they said they fully supported the war on Iraq regardless of this Dodgy dossier fiasco as they belived it was just and the attacks on British/American troops just justify us being there...
now if thats not twisted logic i don't know what is we were justified in invading them as they attacked us after we occupied them?????

Of course now that they have their eyes in Iran soon they will be waging war on Iran and no-one will remeber Iraq.
When you try to point out the repetition on the lies and the Murder you will be told to stop looking at the past, thats yesterdays war you can't compare the two there totally different.

At this point if i was on the Axis of evil list i would get along with every other country on that list and make sure it's understood that the only defence against the USA at the moment is to arm yourself, as Iraq showed trying to comply and co-operate makes no difference you are out the door one way or the other if America wants to try.
What can they do if all their targets decide to give the USA the finger at the same time and start arming themselves?
Can they boycot half the world and wage war on all of them??
I wouldn't be suprised actually if Dubbya did take it as an excuse to launch a small batch of nukes at each of them to test their new "mini-nukes" and even more so i wouldn't be suprised if the majority of the USA went hell yeah nuke the rag heads.
Europe would probably be in an upraor though but not that our governments seem to let that bother them anymore.

 

[goofyfish]

Bremer: “We dominate the scene…”

The words of Paul Bremer, Washington's overlord in Iraq, need no "sexing up". "We are going to fight them and impose our will on them and we will capture or... kill them until we have imposed law and order on this country," he declared at the weekend. "We dominate the scene and we will continue to impose our will on this country." (Full text here)

Meanwhile Americans in Baghdad are becoming increasingly concerned at Bremer's tendency to ride his tricycle while wearing dark sunglasses and screaming "Respect my authoritaaaay!" at bemused Iraqis, before hitting them with his nightstick.

I'm sure that Bremer will keep right on imposing his will on the Iraqis until he's airlifted off of the roof of the palace he's staying in.

Mission Accomplished, dipshit.

:m: Peace.

 

[goofyfish]

Rumsfeld: Iraq No Quagmire or Guerrilla War

At this point, the Administration is spinning so hard its a wonder their heads stay on. But this more than spin - its denial of the obvious.

Rumsfeld said "no one raid or five raids is going to deal with the entire problem. The problem is going to be dealt with over time, as the Iraqis assume more and more responsibility for their own country." He said that "I really don't have a time line" for ending the U.S. presence in Iraq.

He said the problems in Iraq are being caused by five categories of people: remnants of Saddam's government; tens of thousands of Iraqi criminals released before the war from prisons; ordinary looters; foreigners who have entered Iraq; and "people that are being influenced by Iran." (Full text here)

Hey, Donny, you left out a couple others: fathers whose kids have had their legs blown off and "suspects" who sat around for over 24 hours with sacks covering their heads and were ultimately released without being charged with anything.

:m: Peace.

 

[Tiassa]

And from the home front

Huge challenges ahead in Iraq (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

. . . . Minimal numbers of soldiers would be needed, or so we heard from Rumsfeld and others. Happy crowds would welcome the foreign liberators, a la Paris 1944. The post-World War II occupation of Japan would provide the model for smoothly fostering democracy.

Whether or not a guerrilla war is developing in Iraq, those fantasies are laid bare. Confusion reigns over when and how to put any Iraqi government in place . . . .

. . . . If force levels set low to prove Rumsfeld's military theories are straining every undertaking in Iraq, the administration received clear notice. In Februrary, Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army's chief of staff, said several hundred thousand U.S. troops would be needed to secure postwar Iraq.

Although Rumsfeld and his alter bully, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, criticized the estimate as wrong, the general's judgment appeared sound at the time. Shinseki's assessment looks better day by day . . . .

You know, it occurs to me that some armchair second-guessing is fair at this point. (As if we haven't been doing that all along ....) But it couldn't possibly come to any worse result than the present reality, could it?

Another war that isn't. We're in it for five years or something? Until we're done? Whatever?

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

And on the war front

US soldier shot at Baghdad University (BBC)

. . . . According to eyewitnesses two soldiers were chatting to students at a university faculty when a man walked up behind them, drew a pistol and shot one of the Americans in the head at close range.

The students scattered and, in the confusion, the gunman fled on foot.

The BBC's Peter Greste, who heard a single shot, arrived at the scene to see US troops clearing the area and loading their wounded comrade into a vehicle to take to a field hospital . . . .

I posted the Beeb version of it not only because it was the first one I saw a little while ago, but the Reuters report skips the interesting details of the incident, which I guess we can call unconfirmed.

But I'm going to presume that there were too many people around for his fellow soldier to take down the gunman fleeing on foot? Help me out here .... (We can shoot angry people throwing rocks, but not the guy who just shot Bob?)

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[EI_Sparks]

Anyone recall the last Gulf War's story about the babies thrown from incubators and left to die on the floor?
And how it turned out to be complete rot?


Anyone recall this story from the latest invasion about how children were released from a jail where Saddam had imprisoned them for political reasons?
Well, guess what...

Turns out that not only was it not a jail, the children who left there (or, depending on your viewpoint, were driven out) have been much worse off than had they stayed.

Every morning Bakr Al-Saied wakes with only one thought: to find the 130 children who fled the Al-Rahma orphanage and took to Baghdad’s mean streets while their home was being looted and burned. We’ve been looking for them all day and all night. We take a car with UNICEF (UN Children’s Fund) and drive around the city,said Saied, a volunteer at the orphanage in the poor Al-Rashid eastern suburbs. We don’t have any idea where they are,he said.

Fleeing from an orphanage that had been looted after the U.S.-led invasion of the country, she wandered in Baghdad streets until she was raped by some armed men.
The 15-year-old Zeinab now wonders about the fate of an embryo in her womb; yet, no one, including the U.S. occupation forces in charge of the occupied Iraq, has the answer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/weekinreview/06HICK.html

 

[Tiassa]

Unraveling: On the British Home Front

Iraq weapons "unlikely to be found" (BBC)

Senior figures inside Whitehall no longer believe weapons of mass destruction are likely to turn up in Iraq, the BBC has learned.

BBC political editor Andrew Marr says "very senior sources" have virtually ruled out the possibility of finding weapons in Iraq . . . .

. . . . Andrew Marr told the BBC's Ten o'Clock News on Wednesday: "Right at the top of Whitehall, they no longer believe that weapons of mass destruction are likely to turn up in Iraq.

"They do think there were weapons programmes there, they believe that other stuff - interviews with Iraqi scientists, paperwork, dossiers - that will turn up.

"But the actual weapons, the tubs of the evil stuff, the rusting missiles, no, belief that that will actually be available, can be shown to cameras, that is trickling away very fast at the top of government" . . . .

This is a dubious moment for me.

As the case for WMD trickles away, I cannot celebrate the unraveling of the façade. Hopefully, the primary damage will be the against the people's willingness to wage war for uncertain causes.

We are left, it seems, with the Iraqi humanitarian mission. Two points remain prominent:

- Reconstruction is not going as well as hoped
- Humanitarian reasons have never justified full-scale intervention before

Perhaps this latter point has occurred to the UN, which seems in its own way ready to at least give the appearance of giving attention to the crisis in Africa.

But who can call the latest developments in the WMD case "good news"? History will record the fallacy of this war, but that doesn't change the fact that it has happened, and that its results are only marginally less-doubtful, though still bear greater potential, than the justifications at the outset.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Pollux V]

Tiassa, 2 questions

-Didn't we sell/give weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran in the eighties? If so, then where are they?

-If there weren't any weapons in Iraq, how come the Iraqis kept dicking around with the UN inspectors?

My position on the war is in the middle, and I feel, somewhat unique. I believe that Saddam is/was a threat, and that like many countries on Earth, Iraq had a corrupt government that was unfair to its own citizens. As such, I also support the idea of his being replaced by someone better--however, I doubt this will occur. While I support the idea of a war, at the same time, I also feel that bringing to justice those that sold him the weapons would be equally as prudent. Or, at least bringing to justice the people we could get our hands on. While I don't feel like looking for it (getting late...) I'm fairly certain there's a list floating around with a few dozen American businesses that sold weapons/information to Iraq at some time or another before the first Gulf War.

 

[Tiassa]

Random theories

Didn't we sell/give weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran in the eighties? If so, then where are they?

Yes we did. I figure those that weren't used are decayed by now if they still exist. Reports that Hussein destroyed the WMD without recording the event for proof don't necessarily point to his stupidity, but rather to poor judgment in a bad situation he'd gotten himself into. Let's say he destroyed those weapons late in the game, as one theory suggested--shortly before the invasion. After all the lies, would a paranoid Stalinist trust the US and other nations to not use those lies as a pretext for war despite the weapons having been destroyed? Having spun the lies, if Saddam did destroy the weapons without documenting that destruction, it would make sense to stand on the original lies until the end. Hussein may be a bastard, but if investigators don't find evidence of a viable WMD program, the Bush administration is in trouble.

In the meantime ... what ever happened to the theory about the big cargo ship floating randomly around the ocean allegedly containing Iraqi weapons hidden from inspectors? That story disappeared quickly, and usually the bad theories have stuck around long enough to be refuted or generally pulverized by doubt. I've gone Googling for it before, but somehow I keep missing it.

If there weren't any weapons in Iraq, how come the Iraqis kept dicking around with the UN inspectors?

Issues of sovereignty. Michael Moore, for instance, published a letter to UN Secretary-General Annan requesting UN intervention in the American "Bush Junta" (cf "Stupid White Men"). How would Americans treat UN inspectors monitoring our elections (Florida), or looking through our defense network for weapons known to be produced and held in violation of international agreements? Regardless of whether or not Americans would feel justified holding the weapons, Americans would definitely give the inspectors a massive ration of shite. It's kind of like a girl I know who used to fight furiously with her mother: "She's such a bitch," my friend would say. But if anyone else had anything bad to say about her mother ... look out. People are protective of what they consider their own. You'll notice that while the people are happy enough to be rid of Hussein, Iraqis tired quickly of the foreign presence.

I tend to think, though, that Hussein most likely tried to scale back the program by necessity. I've read one article, somewhere, in which a scientist has asserted that the programs were taken apart after the political risk got too high, though I don't know when that threshold was crossed.

And that makes sense to me. UNMOVIC got ahead of the Iraqis a couple of times (e.g. the "chase scene") as Hussein tried to remove only the portions of his program that were directly threatened by inspections, and as the situation moved closer to war destroyed much of what was left of the program that probably never got back off the ground after GW-1.

As to the war in general, I think we're just setting a bad precedent for ourselves; as we commit to various conflicts, are we really prepared to back up our words? The human cause is enough for me, technically, but years ago I decided that wars earned us nothing and that there were better avenues to pursue. The human cause was good enough for me when I was 12 or 15 or 20 and still believed that war could bring real solutions to real problems. But if it's all we're left with in Iraq, we're setting a broad precedent that obliges us to participate in various conflicts over time. If that's what it comes down to, fine, but that's never what it comes down to.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Danish Home Front: The lighter side ... of war

Danes prepare for snow in Iraq (BBC)

Denmark's troops in Iraq may dream of the frost of a Scandinavian winter on days when the temperature rises to a blistering 46 degrees.

But many may have been wondering if the military back home really had to rub it in when a recent supply shipment turned up a snowplough and a stock of salt for icy roads.

Baking in the heat and dust outside Basra, the 380-odd Danes could have been forgiven for thinking the lawnmowers also included in the cargo were a mirage . . . .

The article does note problems with morphine shipments, so it's not all funny. I hope the morphine problem didn't cost anyone a limb or a life or some sanity. But ... a snowplow?

What is Danish for, "You're kidding me, right?"

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[goofyfish]

Anarchy in Iraq

The great rock and roll swindle meets the great weapons of mass destruction swindle.

Johnny Rotten and the gang are going to play a benefit in Baghdad and give them a taste of freedom, UK punk style. This sounds like the perfect soundstage for the Sex Pistols. Poverty, despair, drugs, anarchy -- that was their genesis. They thrive in chaos, and they speak to rage. I think it's a perfect fit, myself.

Rolling Stone.

I wonder if Mr. Lydon will end the show with the question he asked at the end of their first U.S. tour: "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

:m: Peace.

 

[Tiassa]

Buzzkill

Sorry to sap the recent levity of the topic.

Baghdad sexual violence "rising" (BBC)

The US-based Human Rights Watch says the rise in sexual violence is driving women indoors, and preventing them from taking part in Iraq's public life at a crucial time.

The failure of the US led coalition forces and civilian administration in Baghdad to provide public security has made females more vulnerable to sexual violence and abduction, the report says . . . .

. . . . Human Rights Watch says that Iraqi police officers tend to give a low priority to allegations of sexual violence.

"What was particularly worrying was that the Iraqi police were completely uninterested in the 15-year-old's case," says Ms Bjorken.

"When I spoke to them about it, they referred to her as 'the girl who ran away from home'" . . . .

. . . . One nine-year-old rape victim had been turned away from several medical facilities . . . .

The Human Rights Watch website carries the latest on this ugly situation. A 17-page report is available in HTML or PDF format.

Under international humanitarian law, the CPA, as the occupying power, has a duty to restore and maintain public order and safety and to respect the fundamental rights of the territory’s inhabitants. The Fourth Geneva Convention places special emphasis on the requirement that "women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault." (Human Rights Watch)

That's the news, and I am outta here.

... er ...

Yeah.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Morale crisis?

I am coming to question the morale of the troops currently stationed in Iraq. One gets the sense that this is clearly not the mission they had in mind.

MSNBC reports on today's blast outside Baghdad:

_Sgt. Diego Baez, who was in the U.S. truck that took the brunt of the blast, wept as he described the dead soldier.

"We slept next to each other just last night. He was my best friend," said Baez, who was uninjured . . . .

. . . . "We need more protection. We’ve seen enough. We've stayed in Iraq long enough," said Spc. Carlos McKenzie, a member of the convoy.

The BBC also covers the event:

"We were just driving along when the explosion hit," he told The Associated Press. "It was very big."

Following the blast and the loss of another colleague, one soldier raked the area with machine gun fire.

Another wept at the side of the road comforted by a colleague . . . .

. . . . Spc Carlos McKenzie said the convoy, which was on its way to a US base in the desert near Iraq's border with Jordan, did not have enough protection from more heavily armed units.

"We need more protection. We've seen enough. We've stayed in Iraq long enough," he said.

Is there any way to reasonably cycle out the troops in favor of fresh replacements? On the one hand, the US allegedly does not fear two war fronts; to the other, with the NK situation growing daily more worrisome, Bush has promised to not overextend our troops in reference to Liberia, despite that requiring 2,000 American troops or less should the President decide to send troops.

What is our viable invasion and occupation force? I thought our military numbers were in the millions.

Darth? Excuse me, I mean, Don?

:m:,
Tiassa