BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:45 AM

http://www.ak-47.us/Gold_AK47.php

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 01:54 PM

"Can't debate the contents of a thread without trying to divert attention away from the subject at hand"

Your claim about the M-16 and your promise to reveal the source are all contained within this thread.

You brought up the subject and now you claim it is a diversion.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert - PM
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:20 PM

Ahhhhh, didn't matter much that the Kurds were trying to take him out...

But wait, fir an extra $2.95 (plus shipping and handling) you'll get documentation that the US government had promised the Kurds they would support them against Saddam... Hmmmmmmk???...

Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds... Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle...

Hmmmmmmmmm????

You got it wrong, Sawz... But what is new here???

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:18 AM

"Subject at hand"

In this case Iraq

Has the country dissolved into a bitter sectarian civil war - No it most certainly has not

Is Iraq still a state sponsor of international terrorism - No it most certainly is not

Does Iraq still seek to acquire or manufacture WMD - No it most certainly does not

Does the regime in Iraq pose a threat to citizens within its own borders or to its immediate neighbours and the region in general - No it most certainly does not

And the bringing about of the above (all of which were perfectly true under the rule of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist cronies) Bobert counts as being a mistake. Not because all those things were brought to an end, but because all those things were brought to an end by a man called George W. Bush. That and that alone is what sticks in his craw.

Bobert consistantly waves this flag about one million dead Iraqis, who of course never did actually die (the number Bobert quotes as fact was in fact only an estimate of the number who MAY HAVE died - those words featuring large in the report that Bobery claims is his source). The actual figure is more like around one tenth of that figure, and most of those people were killed by foreign jihadist groups; Ba'athist insurgents; sectarian militias and criminal gangs.

Had Saddam or his sons remained in power the number of innocent dead Iraq civilians who would now be dead had the regime maintained it averages would be up arround the 800,000 mark

Was Iraq a mistake Bobert - NOT ON YOUR LIFE - Doubt that?? Then ask the Iraqi's themselves they have got no doubts at all about the benefits of the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, and they acknowledge that they could never have succeeded in accomplishing it on their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:32 AM

"Same old Shit" from, Sawz... Can't debate the contents of a thread without trying to divert attention away from the subject at hand...

How do you spell "personality disorder"???

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 02:05 AM

A deal with Bobert on revealing the source of one of his "facts" that he never made good on:

"Tell ya what, Sawz, I'll find the source if you'll agree that when I find it that you admit that you are wrong... Unless I get that then it's not worth the time it will take to dig it up..."

"OK Bobert, I will admit that I am wrong about Saddam being given a gold plated M16 if you can show it in one of the sources you cited. Ya got a deal."

He changed his claim somewhat and said he did what he was supposed to do but he never produced the source.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 01:11 AM

New York Times

"Speaking as a wounded Marine combat veteran of Vietnam, I believe the recent election in Iraq has provided some meaning and justification to the sacrifice of America's brave soldiers and Marines in that war. Mr. Friedman's column is a breath of fresh air in that regard.

But stating that President Obama has handled his Iraq inheritance deftly is folly. Had it not been for former President George W. Bush's courage in ordering the surge, civil war would reign in Iraq today. Mr. Friedman credits the U.N., the U.S. military and the Obama team for overcoming the obstacles to this election. Try as he may, Mr. Friedman cannot rewrite history as to who really deserves credit.

Eugene M. Ogozalek, Scranton, Pennsylvania "

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 10 - 04:51 AM

Like a great number of people in both the UK and in the USA Amos, you appear to have read what was reported as being said, forgetting to take a look at what was actually said. This is evidenced by:

The bottom line, good T, is that WMDs and delivery systems for them were claimed, as a casus belli and when looked for were not found to exist.

Now take a look at what the UNSCOM/UNMOVIC position was on the subject of Iraq disarmament, and Amos there was no single casus belli, the actual casus belli as far the UK was concerned was Iraq's refusal to honour the ceasefire commitments it agreed to at Safwan in April 1991.

The UNSCOM report of January 1999 and their previous reports while inspectors were still inside Iraq listed discrepencies and items that Iraq could not account for which is why they always spoke in terms of:

what WMD Iraq MAY, OR MAY NOT HAVE"

On the basis of the content of the UNSCOM reports it is not surprising that many involved in UNSCOM, with security, intelligence and in Government around the world fully believed that Saddam and Iraq still possessed these weapons. Saddam openly admitted in prison while waiting trial that he did everything in his power to foster that very impression.

The main objective of Safwan was to see Iraq disarmed so that it could not threaten the peace of the region or its neighbours. Finding WMD was not the primary goal, to verify beyond doubt that Iraq had disarmed was. If you cannot make the distinction between the two then there is little point in continuing the discussion.

One key executive skill that we expect leaders to have is the ability to manage data and realize, for example, when false data is being mixed in, to be alert enough to realize what is likely and what is not. Bush and Blair and many others failed this test miserably.

Utterly ridiculous Amos, you are stating that we should expect our "Leaders" all to be infallible - I have got news for you, that person does not exist. For the above to be possible your "Leader" would have to be an expert in all fields, which of course is impossible.

As described by Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold of the RUSI, the job of the JIC is to gather and analyse intelligence information and from that on any subject they submit and present that information from the best and worse case scenarios. It is then up to Cabinet to decide which to adopt, or where in between policy is set and defined. In matters of security it is normal, the default position if you like, that the worst case scenario is adopted.

By the bye, Amos, you mentioned delivery systems. British Intelligence analysis of test sights prior to the return of the inspectors indicated that Iraq had resurrected its missile development programme, and this was later confirmed by UNMOVIC. The rocket motor test beds were constructed to a specification for testing rockets four times the range of the Scuds previously used to hit targets in Israel in 1991. Work was being done with regard to changing propellant from liquid to solid and 384 rocket motors were found in Iraq that had been illegaly imported. Bottom line Amos was that none of these were allowed according to what Iraq had signed up to.

Another part of the Safwan agreement related to the repatriation of those people that Saddam had abducted from Kuwait during his brief occupation of the place. There were 605 of them, and unfortunately to Saddam they represented a major stumbling block as far as proving compliance when, primarily because by March 2003 he had, with the exception of three of them, had them killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 07:51 PM

The bottom line, good T, is that WMDs and delivery systems for them were claimed, as a casus belli and when looked for were not found to exist.

The claim, sad to say, was false.

One key executive skill that we expect leaders to have is the ability to manage data and realize, for example, when false data is being mixerd in, to be alert enough to realize what is likely and what is not. Bush and Blair and many others failed this test miserably.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 05:13 PM

Believing the 12-year old data was still current reflects a serious myopic self-indulgence on the part of the student, though, and on the part of Bush for failing to notice the data was OBSOLETE INFORMATION.

Well Amos I take it that you too have not really researched what the Post-Grad's Paper was on have you? It detailed ways and means of hiding things inside Iraq and abroad, and although things would not be exactly the same it provides excellent study material to indicate how things can be done and what to look out for.

Like the IED's being encountered in Afghanistan, the Taliban could learn some lessons from Kesselring's troops in Italy when it comes to setting booby-traps, how they did things could be considered as OBSOLETE INFORMATION by clowns who feel the need to re-invent the wheel every two decades, but without a shadow of a doubt they were a damn sight more clever and more resourceful than the Taliban are today, so does that mean we shouldn't study their methods?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 11:35 AM

And rightly so, he should have been credited. He got that part right.

Believing the 12-year old data was still current reflects a serious myopic self-indulgence on the part of the studen6t, though, and on the part of Bush for failing to notice the data was OBSOLETE INFORMATION.

The REAL reason we should have invaded Iraq is that, according to reliable sources, the men there all use HUGE wooden clubs and some of them even have flint-headed bone axes.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 11:17 AM

Now let us see how much of this that Bobert has got wrong:

Gordon Brown just yesterday said that had he known there were no WMD he wouldn't have favored the invasion (No surprise there Bobert everything that man has touched has turned to shit, he is renown for his poor judgement and lack of understanding of real problems)... The problem with that statement is that the evidence that was used to suggest that their might be WMD was trumped up by Bush & Co. and Blair & Co (Well No Bobert it wasn't. The evidence that was used relating to what WMD Iraq may, or may not have had came from UNSCOM, your pal Doctor Hans Blix helped write the Report quantifying the WMD and highlighting the discrepencies).... Even the final piece of so-called evidence that Busdh used in his Sate of the Union Adress about Saddam having anuclear weapons program was soon after described as a college kids term paper that intellegence people thought was very amatuarish (Wrong)...

So that's why Bush and Blair pulled the string on the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis??? A college kids 20 year old term paper??? Give me a break, ya'll (No Bobert you give us a break and do a bit of honest research instead of just spouting out the first thing that crosses that soup that passes for your brain)... That is about the most childish excuse for a war that has ever been dreamed up... A 20 year old C+ college kids term paper???? (Any idea what the paper was about Bobert? any idea who wrote it? Going by what you are telling folks here you haven't got the foggiest clue)

The paper that the British Intelligence Agencies were guilty of plagiarising concerned the systems and networks set up by Saddam Hussein's regime to hide his weapons programmes and networks for purchasing prohibited items. The person who wrote the paper was a Post-Graduate Student, not a 20 year old college kid. His source material was over a million documents captured from the Iraqis. At the time in question the paper was 12 years old and according to its author still highly relevant. The author's own opinion at the time was that it was perfectly correct to use the information contained in the paper, his only complaint was that he was not credited for his work.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 11:29 PM

New York Times

...Former President George W. Bush’s gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy was always right. It should have and could have been pursued with much better planning and execution. This war has been extraordinarily painful and costly. But democracy was never going to have a virgin birth in a place like Iraq, which has never known any such thing.

Some argue that nothing that happens in Iraq will ever justify the costs. Historians will sort that out. Personally, at this stage, I only care about one thing: that the outcome in Iraq be positive enough and forward-looking enough that those who have actually paid the price â€" in lost loved ones or injured bodies, in broken homes or broken lives, be they Iraqis or Americans or Brits â€" see Iraq evolve into something that will enable them to say that whatever the cost, it has given freedom and decent government to people who had none.

That, though, will depend on Iraqis and their leaders. It was hopeful to see the strong voter turnout â€" 62 percent â€" and the fact that some of the largest percentage of voting occurred in regions, like Kirkuk and Nineveh Provinces, that are hotly disputed. It means people are ready to use politics to resolve disputes, not just arms.

We can only hope so. President Obama has handled his Iraq inheritance deftly, but he is committed to the withdrawal timetable. As such, our influence there will be less decisive every day. We need Iraqi leaders to prove to their people that they are not just venal elites out to seize the spoils of power more than to seize this incredible opportunity to remake Iraq. We need to see real institution-builders emerge, including builders of a viable justice system and economy. And we need to be wary that too big an army and too much oil can warp any regime.

Iraq will be said to have a decent outcome not just if that young boy whose mother let him cast her ballot gets to vote one day himself. It will be a decent outcome only if his life chances improve â€" because he lives in a country with basic security, basic services, real jobs and decent governance.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:31 AM

Barack Obama hails Iraq election 'milestone'

The completion of the election was plenty to celebrate for some voters

US President Barack Obama has hailed a "milestone" in the history of Iraq, as it completed its second parliamentary election since the 2003 invasion.

He praised the courage of voters who turned out despite bomb and mortar attacks that killed at least 35 people.

Two buildings were destroyed in Baghdad, while there were also attacks in Mosul, Falluja, Baquba and Samarra.

"Today's voting makes it clear that the future of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq," Mr Obama said.

"Today, in the face of violence from those who would only destroy, Iraqis took a step forward in the hard work of building up their country.".....

Iraqis Vote

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 01:37 AM

So Iraq is now this bigass success story???

'Cordin' to that Joe the fumbler guy that you voted for:

"Iraq looks to be a major success story"

You know Bobert, it's going to take you days and days of posting all kinds of crybaby propaganda stuff about Cheney, oil, Halliburton etc etc in an effort divert people's attention away from the facts and piss in Iraq's candles.

Right now, that other guy you voted for is callin' in Predator and Reaper strikes that's killing innocent men women and children in Pakistan and Afghanistan [did we officially declare war on Pakistan or Afghanistan?] In an effort to establish some kind of self rule in Afghanistan.

Are you gonna piss on that one too and bring up all the shit Obama did that was war crimes when Bush did the same thing?

Better get started on your Afghanistan was wrong thread.

You have your work cut out for you and you still won't change a damned thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 05:43 PM

But, Royston, Halliburton made out purdy good...

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Royston
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM

You try and sell that sack of shit, Sawzaw, to the half a million or so innocents that lost their lives in the Blair/Bush chaos. It was Reagan/Thatcher that created Saddam to begin with, and Bush snr. that decided to keep him in play after Gulf 1.

The reasons for that will be come all too apparent when we leave the stage. The last 7 years will have been for nothing, when we should have been concentrating on the real enemies of human civilisation over in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:26 PM

So Iraq is now this bigass success story??? Pee in the cup, Sawz...

The final chapter has not yet been written yet and tho I hope that it does succeed that hope dodesn't change the fact that the war was a miserable mistake...

Gordon Brown just yesterday said that had he known there were no WMD he wouldn't have favored the invasion... The problem with that statement is that the evidence that was used to suggest that their might be WMD was trumped up by Bush & Co. and Blair & Co.... Even the final piece of so-called evidence that Busdh used in his Sate of the Union Adress about Saddam having anuclear weapons program was soon after described as a college kids term paper that intellegence people thought was very amatuarish...

So that's why Bush and Blair pulled the string on the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis??? A college kids 20 year old term paper??? Give me a break, ya'll... That is about the most childish excuse for a war that has ever been dreamed up... A 20 year old C+ college kids term paper????

But like I said, the final chapter has not been written here but I ceratinly hope it's alot better than the first couple hundred...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:01 PM

Joe Biden Feb 2002: "But we can’t seem to talk about what comes next without talking about Iraq. It’s obvious we must end the reign of Saddam Hussein. It would be unrealistic, if not downright foolish, to believe we can claim victory in the war on terrorism if Saddam is still in power".

Joe Biden Feb 2007: the next president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof"

Joe Biden June 2007: "The surge isn't going to work either tactically or strategically"

Iraq one of Obama's 'great achievements'
Los Angeles Times February 11, 2010

Many Americans recall the ex-Sen. Biden's Democratic primary plans to give in to Iraq's fractious factions and carve the country into three territories. And even more probably recall Biden's boss' plan to halt the Iraq war years ago. As long as it got started anyway without the permission of the then state senator.Plus, of course, the vehement opposition of the Nobel Prize winner to the 2007 American troop surge of you-know-who from Texas that Obama knew for certain was only going to worsen sectarian strife there. "I think he's wrong, I think the American people think he's wrong"

Well, of course, it didn't turn out that way, thanks in large measure to the brave service of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops who served in that war-torn land and helped peace to break out despite the loud political acrimony back home over their role. Now, the Obama-Biden pair that opposed the Iraq war and its tactics and predicted their failure is prepared to accept credit for its success. It seems that Biden, who's from Delaware when he's in Delaware and Pennsylvania when in Pennsylvania, is certain now that Iraq will turn out to be one of the Obama-Biden administration's greatest achievements.

BidenFeb 2010: I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

    I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

Biden did not elaborate on what all the administration's other "great achievements" were so far.

No doubt, Iraqis too are very thankful for that 2008 U.S. election. More Here

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 08:29 AM

Who is this "Mr I Predicted" person, Sawz???

(Shhhhhhh, Bobert... He's Sawz, you know, "special friend" (wink, wink...)...

Nevermind, I withdraw the question...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 12:46 AM

Mr. "I predicted" falls silent.

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.

There is no military solution in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 09:08 AM

MSNBC:

Joe Biden:, "When the president announced his surge, I made the case that he should be surging in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. Chris [Matthews], I know you know a lot about this. Imagine if we fail in Afghanistan.

What that will mean is Musharraf will cut even a closer deal with al Qaeda and with the Taliban, and if he doesn't, he puts himself in the position of being overthrown more than he is now. That is a radicalized country. It has nuclear weapons and it will be a disaster.

If there was a totally just war since World War II, it is the war in Afghanistan, and we are not—we are not—dealing with it properly. We have diverted resources to Iraq from the beginning. And if anything, we should be increasing resources in Afghanistan which I called for three months ago. "

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,Ben Franklin
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 11:23 PM

"There never was a good war, nor a bad peace..."

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:47 PM

No, still wrong, Sawz...

Neither war is the right war... Ain't no right wars... Just stupid ones...

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 12:11 AM

So the "right war" is Afghanistan?

Will Mr. deadly accurate crystal ball lay out his predictions please?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 06:15 PM

Occupation of a country by any nation that doesn't want it is a form of violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 05:56 PM

85,000 is the mininum, not the maximum. From the article...

"At best, the numbers released by the Human Rights Ministry and those obtained by the AP are a minimum of the number who died. Emmanuel d'Harcourt from the New York-based International Rescue Committee, who's participated in mortality surveys in such places as Sudan and Sierra Leone, said the figures are undoubtedly low and that considering the challenges associated with counting those killed in the Iraq conflict, a true figure might never be reached."

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 04:48 PM

Only 85,000 people???

Geeze, reckon maybe George Bush should have been considered for a Nobel Peace Prize...

(Not...)

No matter, 85,000, 500,000 a million... A very messed up decision made for some even more messed up reasons... How do you spell "politics" or "Karl Rove"???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:23 PM

After all these years of inefficiency, corruption, loss of life, innocents abused,
no change in attitudes is there any one who is rational that wouldn't consider
this incursion a mistake? Obviously, it has accomplished nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 11:10 PM

Associated Press Wed Oct 14

BAGHDAD â€" Iraq's government said at least 85,000 people were killed from 2004 to 2008, officially answering one of the biggest questions of the conflict â€" how many perished in the sectarian violence that nearly led to a civil war. What remains unanswered is how many died in the 2003 U.S. invasion and in the months of chaos that followed it.

A report by the Human Rights Ministry said 85,694 people were killed from the beginning of 2004 to Oct. 31, 2008 and 147,195 were wounded. The figures included Iraqi civilians, military and police but did not cover U.S. military deaths, insurgents, or foreigners, including contractors. And it did not include the first months of the war after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The Associated Press reported similar figures in April based on government statistics obtained by the AP showing that the government had recorded 87,215 Iraqi deaths from 2005 to February 2009. The toll included violence ranging from catastrophic bombings to execution-style slayings.

Until the AP report, the government's toll of Iraqi deaths had been one of the war's most closely guarded secrets. Both supporters and opponents of the conflict have accused the other of manipulating the toll to sway public opinion. The 85,694 represents about 0.3 percent of Iraq's estimated 29 million population. In a sign of how significant the numbers are, that would be akin to the United States losing about 900,000 people over a similar period.

The ministry's report came out late Tuesday as part of a larger study on human rights in the country. It described the years that followed the invasion, which toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, as extremely violent. "Through the terrorist attacks like explosions, assassinations, kidnappings and forced displacements, the outlawed groups have created these terrible figures," it said. Violence in Iraq has declined dramatically since the height of the fighting but almost every Iraqi family has a story of relatives killed, maimed or missing. One Baghdad resident, Ali Khalil, 27, from the Sadr City neighborhood whose father was shot in late 2006 by gunmen said he was not surprised by the government's figures.

"I expect that the real numbers of the people killed are higher than this," Khalil said. He added that he did not think the country would return to the high numbers of dead in the future because security has improved. "We have already lost dear ones, and we hope that our sadness and losses will cease." Iraq's death toll continued to climb on Wednesday when three near simultaneous blasts struck the southern Shiite holy city of Karbala, killing at least six people.
According to the ministry's report, the dead included 1,279 children and 2,334 women. At least 263 university professors, 21 judges, 95 lawyers and 269 journalists were killed â€" professions which were specifically targeted as the country descended into chaos.

According to the report, 2006 was the deadliest year with 32,622 killed or found dead. The toll for 2004 was 11,313, rising to 15,817 the next year. The second deadliest year in the period covered was 2007 with 19,155 killed or found dead. The toll fell to 6,787 in 2008, the lowest yearly count for the period. The count also included 15,000 unidentified bodies that were buried after going unclaimed by families. An additional 10,000 people were also listed as missing although Human Rights Ministry official Kamail Amin said it was not known whether there was overlap between the missing and unidentified counts.

Amin said the missing figures were based on people who came to the ministry to report a missing relative, something that many Iraqis, who feared reprisals and were hesitant to draw attention to themselves, were loathe to do. Significantly the report does not contain figures from 2003, a period during which there was no functioning Iraqi government.

"The situation was chaotic and there was an absence of government institutions. The whole country was in total anarchy," Amin said. The violence that has gripped Iraq made it increasingly difficult after 2003 to independently track death figures. Records were not always compiled centrally, the brutal insurgency sharply limited on-the-scene reporting. The U.S. military never shared its data.

At best, the numbers released by the Human Rights Ministry and those obtained by the AP are a minimum of the number who died. Emmanuel d'Harcourt from the New York-based International Rescue Committee, who's participated in mortality surveys in such places as Sudan and Sierra Leone, said the figures are undoubtedly low and that considering the challenges associated with counting those killed in the Iraq conflict, a true figure might never be reached. "I would think that Iraq would be one of the most difficult places on Earth to count the dead," he said. The official who provided the data to the AP at the time estimated the actual number of deaths was 10 to 20 percent higher.

Combined with tallies based on hospital sources and media reports since the beginning of the war and an in-depth review of available evidence by the AP, the figures showed that more than 110,600 Iraqis had died in violence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and up through early 2009. The most recent numbers from Iraq Body Count, a private London-based group that has tracked civilian casualties since the war began, puts the number of civilian casualties as of Oct. 14 at 93,540.

The toll released Tuesday was based on death certificates issued by the Health Ministry. The tolls measure only violent deaths â€" people killed in attacks such as the shootings, bombings, mortar attacks and beheadings that have ravaged Iraq. They exclude indirect factors such as damage to infrastructure, health care and stress. Some experts favor cluster surveys, in which conclusions are drawn from a select sampling of households. The largest cluster survey in Iraq was conducted in 2007 by the World Health Organization and the Iraqi government. It concluded that about 151,000 Iraqis had died from violence in the 2003-05 period, but that included insurgents.

A more controversial cluster study conducted between May and July 2006 by Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, published in the Lancet medical journal, estimated that 601,027 Iraqis had died due to violence. Critics argue that such surveys are flawed in Iraq because the security situation prevents a proper sampling. They also have margins of error that could skew the numbers by the tens of thousands.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:56 AM

While the invasion of Iraq was hamhanded, bloodthirsty, misconceived and wasteful in the extreme, the question remains what it will evolve into after the troops from the US leave.

There is a good possibility it will degenerate into armed factionalism.

There are sect militias that have been kept in check and in hiding by the presence of the US forces there and their actions following the pullout are unpredictable.

The capability of Al Qeda to revive is not clearly known.

Foreign Policy magazine discusses the imponderables of Iraq's future.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:10 AM

The real reason Iraq was a mistake is made clear int he recently released post-capture interviews of SaddamHussein by the FBI:

"Hussein, in fact, said he felt so vulnerable to the perceived threat from "fanatic" leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a "security agreement with the United States to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region."

Former president George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq six years ago on the grounds that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to international security. Administration officials at the time also strongly suggested Iraq had significant links to al-Qaeda, which carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Hussein, who was often defiant and boastful during the interviews, at one point wistfully acknowledged that he should have permitted the United Nations to witness the destruction of Iraq's weapons stockpile after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The FBI summaries of the interviews -- 20 formal interrogations and five "casual conversations" in 2004 -- were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute, and posted on its Web site yesterday. The detailed accounts of the interviews were released with few deletions, though one, a last formal interview on May 1, 2004, was completely redacted.

Thomas S. Blanton, director of the archive, said he could conceive of no national security reason to keep Hussein's conversations with the FBI secret. Paul Bresson, a bureau spokesman, said he could not explain the reason for the redactions.

The 20 formal interviews took place between Feb. 7 and May 1, followed by the casual conversations between May 10 and June 28. Hussein was later transferred to Iraqi custody, and he was hanged in December 2006.
ad_icon

The formal interviews covered Hussein's rise to power, the Kuwait invasion, and Hussein's crackdown on the Shiite uprising in extensive detail, while the subject of the weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda were raised in the casual conversations, after the formal interviews. Blanton said this suggests that the FBI received new orders from Washington to delve into topics of intense interest to Bush administration officials.

The FBI spokesman did not know why those subjects were raised in the later meetings. In an interview last year on CBS's "60 Minutes," George L. Piro, the agent who conducted the interviews, said he purposely put Hussein's back against the wall "psychologically to tell him that his back was against the wall," but he did not use coercive interrogation techniques, because "it's against FBI policy." The interviews released yesterday do not suggest any use of coercive techniques.

During the interviews, Piro, who conducted them in Arabic, often appeared to challenge Hussein's account of events, citing facts that contradicted his recollections. He even forced Hussein to watch a graphic British documentary on his treatment of the Shiites, though that did not appear to shake the former president.

At one point, Hussein dismissed as a fantasy the many intelligence reports that said he used a body double to elude assassination. "This is movie magic, not reality," he said with a laugh. Instead, he said, he had used a phone only twice since 1990 and rarely slept in the same location two days in a row.

Hussein's fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. Iran and Iraq had fought a grinding eight-year war in the 1980s, and Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq -- which is largely Shiite. "Hussein viewed the other countries in the Middle East as weak and could not defend themselves or Iraq from an attack from Iran," Piro recounted in his summary of a June 11, 2004, conversation.

"The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors," Piro wrote. "Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq." "

Full story at WaPo.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 01:41 PM

"...By Tim Cocks and Muhanad Mohammed BAGHDAD, June 29 (Reuters) - U.S. troops pulled out of Baghdad on Monday, triggering jubilation among Iraqis hopeful that foreign military occupation is ending six years after the invasion to depose Saddam Hussein.

Iraqi soldiers paraded through the streets in their American-made vehicles draped with Iraqi flags and flowers, chanting, dancing and calling the pullout a "victory".

One drove a motorcycle with party streamers on it; another, a Humvee with a garland of plastic roses on the grill.

U.S. combat troops must pull out of Iraq's urban centres by midnight on Tuesday under a bilateral security pact that also requires all troops to leave the country by 2012.

All had left the capital by Monday afternoon, Major-General in Staff, Abboud Qanbar, head of Iraqi security forces in Baghdad, told Reuters.

Another Iraqi official who would not be named, said some units in cities outside Baghdad would leave at the last minute. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said 30 bases remained to be handed over. There are still some 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Addressing military leaders in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said: "Our sovereignty has started and ... we should move forward to build a modern state and enjoy security which has been achieved."

Many Iraqis were elated even though they feared militants might use the withdrawal as an opportunity to step up attacks.

"The American forces' withdrawal is something awaited by every Iraqi: male, female, young and old. I consider June 30 to be like a wedding," said Ahmed Hameed, 38, near an ice cream bar in Baghdad's upmarket Karrada district.

"This is proof Iraqis are capable of controlling security inside Iraq," added the recent returnee from exile in Egypt.

The government has declared June 30 a national holiday, "National Sovereignty Day".



"BIG JOY"

A spate of bombings in recent days, including two of the deadliest for more than a year that killed 150 people between them, have raised fears militants will try to step up the pace of attacks.

Yet few Iraqis see that as reason for the Americans to stay.

"It is a big joy to see them leaving," said Abu Hassan, 60, a shop owner. "There might be some more attacks because of struggles between the different parties, but Iraqis are controlling security now. It's up to our forces now."

At a ceremony outside central Baghdad's old defence ministry building, the last Baghdad location to be handed over by U.S. forces, a military band played while soldiers and army college students paraded through a square festooned with Iraqi flags...."

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:34 PM

"BAGHDAD — Bombings and shootings killed at least 33 people in Baghdad and surrounding areas Monday, including a group of high school students on a bus headed for final exams, as violence intensified before a planned withdrawal next week of U.S. troops from urban areas.

The bombings, nearly all in Shiite areas of the capital, came just two days after the year's deadliest attack — a truck bombing that killed at least 75 people in northern Iraq.

Violence has declined drastically over the past two years, but the recent attacks have raised concerns about the Shiite-dominated government's ability to provide security around the country without the immediate help of the remaining U.S. troops in Iraq. More than 100 people have died in three days of bloodletting, mostly from bombings but also from shootings.

Starting June 30, most of the 133,000 American troops left here will be housed in large bases outside the capital and other cities — unable to react unless called on for help. The withdrawal is part of an agreement under which all U.S. troops are to leave Iraq by the end of 2011.

The reclusive Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called on the Shiite-led government to take whatever steps necessary to protect Iraqis from attacks. But in a statement, the anti-American cleric blamed the violence on the continued presence of U.S. troops in the country and demanded a faster withdrawal.

"The Iraqi people are heading toward a new phase that might lift them out from their suffering," the cleric said in a statement. He also called on his followers to remain peaceful.

Last August, he ordered militiamen of his Mahdi Army to lay down their arms and take up social work. The edict came just after U.S. troops working with Iraqi soldiers routed the militia in its stronghold in Baghdad's Sadr City."


Hmmmm. Ripsnorting win all around, I reckon. Good thing we exercised our superiority of arms and all that.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:06 PM

"Americans will remain ready to help, as they were in the aftermath of Saturday's bombing, but many Iraqis fear their departure after two years of a steady urban presence will prove deadly" From the above clicky.

How can this be as success?.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:01 PM

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/06/ap_Iraq_bombings_shootings_062209w/

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:37 PM

Again at the risk of being called a wanker, a device used to deflect from the value of a discussion I enter again.

Personally my take on it, had Saddam not been removed from power -

"- UN sanctions would have been lifted or just plain ignored in 2003"

I don't think so. This is entirely speculative. No proof for this.


"- Saddam would have resurrected his WMD programmes and continued all R&D work associated with them

He wouldn't have gotten to first base. He was all talk as was shown.

"- Saddam would have rearmed and re-equipped his Armed forces this would have taken two years"

But not with WMD's. This is not provable.

"- 2005 he would have attacked Iran and started the second Iran/Iraq War."

No, I think that he would have united with Iran against US occupation. Again, this is pure conjecture. Nobody knows for sure.

"There is no way on earth that Saddam Hussein in Iraq would ever permit Iran to develop and build any nuclear capability - Hells teeth this was the man who started a war and invaded Iran in 1980, because the Iranians had stated that they wanted meetings to resolve their differences over the Shat-Al-Arab waterway."

But this is a different issue then building nuclear facilities. Water disputes would not
have sparked a nuclear confrontation. Iraq did not have the means to employ WMD's and
probably wouldn't because as crazy as Saddam was, he knew that he couldn't win that conflagration. He wasn't a Hitler in that his designs over Kuwait were not to take over the world. It was to defend his turf.

Saddam's designs were overrated and overreaction over them ensued through the Bush Administration. Junior just wanted to avenge his daddy and used that as a Captain Ahab
approach to going after the white whale.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:54 AM

"I wasn't a proponent of impeachment... I have posted many times about it being a political trap for the Dems"

Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
From: Bobert - PM
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 08:45 AM

Hey, I thought I'd never vote for anything related to the knothead but hey...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 12:24 AM

Read back about eight years, and you will find that Bobert's prediction's have been correct at a rate that far surpasses the people who regularly try to crap on him. Sorry, it's true. Why not Google up who predicted that there would be no invasion of Iraq because "{the grown-ups are in charge now}", or how about "{the estimate of 100,000 Iraqi casualties is ridiculous}", or "{where is the house-to-house urban warfare Bobert?}".
Sheeesh. Don't count on a short memory from this quarter.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 12:05 AM

Another Bobert prediction:

"Now back to the economy... Obama is going to have to accept McCain's proposal to buy up forclosure loans where the homeowner can reasonably pay at 6% fixed for 30 years... This will stabilize the housing market and is exactly what FDR did in 1933 with his Home Loan Corp.... But Obama is going to have to take this one step further and sell the American people on a perminent Home Loan Corp. and use the principle tyo repay the4 taxpayers initial outlay and the interest to go into shoring up Social Security...."

When Bobert?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 11:38 AM

Sawz:

As a loyal supporter of the Bush regime you have no standing to pass judgement on or moralize about the death of innocents, you bleeding hypocrite.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 09:25 AM

Bite me, Sawz... The only ego around here is yours but yer too vain to see it... Everyone else sees it, though...

As for this thread being about the stimilus package, that is another dillusion on yer part...

I was answering another criticism of the Obama administratioon posted by bb... Hey, if ya'll want to take cheap shots having nuthin' to do with the Iraq war you can take it to the bank that this ol' hillbilly is gonna block... Basic self defense... No cheap shots will go unanswered... Yers included...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 09:15 AM

It's the people with chemical dependencies the need to talk thing over with the "theapist/shrink". People that believe Rumsfeld gave Saddam a gold plated M16 for instance. Once you make a dumbass (your choice of words) unsupportable statement and swear it is the truth, You ignore any challenge to prove it and go into personal attack mode, thinking up fantasies of drug rehab and mental illness.

Now this thread is about the stimulus package?

Hey Bobert, if you put your ego on hold and stub out that reefer you will see that the war didn't happen because of the stimulus package.

And it is obvious that you do approve of Obama ordering Predator strikes that kill innocent women and children but you gush like a little girl because he opposes waterboarding which does not kill anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 05:46 PM

T is right... Saddam and Akemadingaling wouldn't be buddies...

Sawz is wrong... I had no problems supporting Obama's stated promise to gpo after al qeada in Pakistan if the Pakistani's wouldn't... He has and in doing so forced the Pakistanis to do a little heavy lifting on there own...

But wait... Sawz wrong again... I know, how can that be??? I wasn't a proponent of impeachment... I have posted many times about it being a political trap for the Dems...

But wait, Part B... Sawz is wrong yet again... Holy Moly... Yes, this thread is very much about the Iraq War... It is Saws "obsession" with me that prevents him from seein' that... I asked him to talk it over with his theapist/shrink but looks as if they aren't making any progress...

As for the Repubs??? The stimulis package was debated for a long, long time and the Repubs had plenty of opportunity to weigh in with their ideas... They chose to sandbag... That's the way it went down... This picture that bruce paints of Obama in not accurate... Right now in Congress there is more respect being shown the Repubs on Health Care than was shown the Dems on any major piece of legislation that went thr Congress during the Repubs 14 year lock on it... Remember the Medicare Perscription Drug Plan??? Prime example of the difference between what the Repubs did and the respect that is being afforded them now that the Dems have control of Congress...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 03:37 PM

Amos,

"Don't be an ass, Bruce. Sounds to me like we both carefully selected out the parts of the timeline that fed our presuppositions. I don't think either of our two descriptions is uniformly the way it was, and it is far more likely that both were in play at different times."

Implying, since you admit "BOTH" that YOU are/were being an ass?

Or was that just your normal Liberal method of addressing someone?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 03:09 PM

Don't be an ass, Bruce. Sounds to me like we both carefully selected out the parts of the timeline that fed our presuppositions. I don't think either of our two descriptions is uniformly the way it was, and it is far more likely that both were in play at different times.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 02:02 PM

"
I believe that was tried, repeatedly, during the first 100 days,"

Sorry to disagree with your religious worship of Obama, but it was NOT tried- Obama would not even post the bills online ( as promised) or allow time to let even his owwn party read them before the votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:46 PM

Yep, this thread is not about the Iraq war, it's all about Bobert the Alpha male. Man is he pissed because Bush and Cheney have not been impeached. So pissed he keeps beating the drum after the parade is over.

Anyway getting back to Bobert's gold plated M16 type dillusions, how come Obama follows the same GWB policies on Iraq Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Mr. Obama authorizes Predator strikes that kill innocent women and children. Is that OK with the Bobert?

Seems like a morally righteous guy like Bobert should be calling him a war criminal and calling for his arrest for war crimes.

The 2009 supplemental spending request from the Whitehouse also points towards the increased use of the MQ - 1 Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper drones in the war. Obama seeks $57.4 million to acquire 742 Predator Hellfire missiles and $196 million for ten new MQ-9 Reapers.

I never heard of a Reaper but it sounds even more vicious than waterboarding which never killed anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:45 PM

I believe that was tried, repeatedly, during the first 100 days, and obstreperous obstruction was the usual response.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:18 PM

"You got the right, but you may be called upon to defend them cogently"

Why?? I don't see the mojority here doing so.




"They have become marginalized by just not wanting to play, period..."

Perhaps if they were asked for their view BEFORE the announcement of how it was going to be done, they might have some ownership of the policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:13 PM

Why would Saddam be A's best friend, mg???

Now I am dying to hear the answer to that question.

Personally my take on it, had Saddam not been removed from power -

- UN sanctions would have been lifted or just plain ignored in 2003

- Saddam would have resurrected his WMD programmes and continued all R&D work associated with them

- Saddam would have rearmed and re-equipped his Armed forces this would have taken two years

- 2005 he would have attacked Iran and started the second Iran/Iraq War.

There is no way on earth that Saddam Hussein in Iraq would ever permit Iran to develop and build any nuclear capability - Hells teeth this was the man who started a war and invaded Iran in 1980, because the Iranians had stated that they wanted meetings to resolve their differences over the Shat-Al-Arab waterway.