<link>

Any comment on this?

At least, if you believe the Iraqi police and U.S. military and their account of the situation.

In any case, yet another tragic result of the criminal U.S. invasion and occupation of the country. I can only hope that we'll be able to withdraw completely under President Obama's administration, and that situations like this will gradually taper off and end.

...under President Obama's administration, and that situations like this will gradually taper off and end.

You are delusional if you think Obama (or any new US Pres.) is going to stop those types of things from happening. They happened before the invasion of Iraq, and they will happen after Obama is elected too.

...but that'll be the problem of the Iraqi government, not ours. Of course Obama won't "stop those things from happening," but interventionism only makes them MORE likely to happen.

Need you be reminded Split-S that these things were not happening before the invasion. Cause and effect remember?

Thus, it's likely that these attacks will be less likely to happen after we leave.

Your logic is flawed here Neo.

Sure, there were fewer suicide attacks in Iraq because they had a brutal dictator in place. None the less horrible things like this did happen under his rule, by his orders (attacks against the Kurds, purging of political opposition etc.). Now that he is not in place there is a power struggle in Iraq, which is relatively stable now because of our presence. If we were to leave, this struggle would not suddenly cease to exist and would most likely elevate to a more horrifying degree, remember too that we are not the only ones meddling in Iraq. Need I remind you that the majority of the violence in Iraq is directed toward other Iraqis, not US and coalition forces. As much as you want this to be a guerrilla war against the capitalist oppressors (US) it is at most a civil war that has cooled down considerably and is approaching its end because of US intervention.

NDTV.com: Bomb attacks kill 45 in Iraq
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq bomb kills police recruits
GMANews.TV - Bomb blasts kill 34 in Iraq, officials say - World - Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs - Latest Ph.
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraq market truck bomb kills 105
115 Killed By Bomb Outside Iraqi Clinic (washingtonpost.com)
Suicide bomb kills over 100 in Iraq
2 Iraqi officials accused of aiding al-Qaida - Yahoo! News
100 dead in Iraq bomb carnage | World news | guardian.co.uk
More than 100 killed, 250 wounded in Iraq bomb attack - Haaretz - Israel News
Truthdig - Ear to the Ground - Bombing Upsurge in Iraq Kills 100
Suicide bomb attacks kill 52 in Iraq - Telegraph
Lorry bomb kills children in school - Times Online

Yes Oldschool. All of these attacks took place after the invasion.

My point exactly.

Split-S,

It is your logic that is flawed. There were no suicide bombings pre invasion and now they are common.

There is no questioning that there was violence under Saddam, but yo must remember that he was in power or 30 years. There was little violence during he 90's, yet we are hanging our hat on the fact that violence has been reduced in the last 3 months, but remains much higher than it was before the invasion.

There is no evidence that the violence would increase if we left, but we will never know until we leave. There is ample evidence that violence is already on the increase and that the battle for Kirkuck could descend into chaos, with or without us there, not to mention Malaki's persecution of the Anbar awakeneing leaders.

Need I remind you that the majority of the violence in Iraq is directed toward other Iraqis, not US and coalition forces.

But that is wrong. US forces are being attacked at a rate of 1800 per attacks per month. IN fact, 70-80% of attacks are directed US forces.

Don;t put words in my mouth Split-S. I do not want a guerrilla war against US forces, I just want us out.

We have been conned.

It's either that we can;t leave becasue the violence is too bad, or we can;t leave becasue things are getting better. It's heads we win, tails they lose.

Didn't mean to put words in your mouth Neo, but does that mean that you don’t really believe there is a guerilla war against the US but you will say there is as long as it gets us out of Iraq? So that sectarian violence thing is a sham? No civil war? What constitutes an "attack"? These figures can be misleading. There is no disputing that the big ones are directed toward pilgrams, recruiting stations for the Iraqi police and Army and markets.

It is your logic that is flawed. There were no suicide bombings pre invasion and now they are common.

Now you put words in my mouth here. I never said anything about suicide attacks, I was talking about violence in general, and I think it bothersome that you so causualy dismiss the atrocities that were commited by Sadam. I was also refering not to Iraq but to the entire ME. This is the key difference, you see Iraq as an isolated event, I see it as one of many fronts, one peice in a larger puzzle and merely leaving Iraq is not going to reduce violence there or anywhere else in the ME. Do you really think that if we leave the Iraqis are going to shake hands and everything will be peaceful, the Kurds, the Sunni and Shia? How could you believe that? The violence didn't stop when we left Veitnam and it won't stop in Iraq either. However, the way things are going now if we stay the violence may just end, at least in Iraq for good.

I'll also have you know that I don't want to be over there now any more than you do, I always felt we should have left immediately after we decapitated the regime and removed Saddam and his filthy offspring. It is hard to be killed by a road side bomb if you are not there. Using that method we could have dealt with just about every other dictator that was unfriendly, rinse and repeat. Less US casualties and less civilian casualties that could be blamed on the US and we get what we want by removing an unfreindly dictator. The next unfrindly dictator that crops up will know that the US is coming to ruin his party, and we look invincible because we are in and out before they have time to bleed us with geurilla warfare. It plays to our strengths and to their weakness. Sure we would look like jerks but unbeatable jerks is better than what we are now. Lets face it, we will always look like jerks we are America! The world loves to hate us, it is fun, its trendy and it is fashonable.

It's simple cause and effect Split_S.

There was no civil war or terrorism in Iraq before we invaded.

Of course there is an insurgency against the US, but once the US leaves, the greatest motivation for the violence would have gone. No civil war?

There is no disputing that the big ones are directed toward pilgrims, recruiting stations for the Iraqi police and Army and markets.

Because they are soft targets.

There were no suicide bombings pre invasion and now they are common.

Either there were or there weren't. There is no disputing that there were no suicide bombings pre invasion. And if you want documentation, I refer you to Robert Pape's book, dying to win, where he documented the history of suicide bombings. His conclusion is that 90% of suicide attacks have been related to territorial disputes.

I am not dismissing the atrocities that were committed by Saddam, but since when was Saddam's conduct a benchmark for our morality? More to the point, the same number of people have dies since the invasion (6 years) as dies under Saddam in 30. That hardly justifies out invasion as a humanitarian mission does it?

So you want to expand the argument to the ME, fine. Answer this then. How many people were killed as a result of Arab/Muslim violence in the 20th Century vs those killed at the hands of western conflicts? I think you'll find that WWI, WWII, Vietnam, et all accounts for more than 20 times the deaths that took place at the hands of Islamic radicals or Arab dictators.

The violence in Iraq is likely ot continue after we leave, but our presence there is preventing rival factions from doing business. The Shiites in power have been emboldened to throw their weight around because we were there to protect them. We then woke up and realized this was isolating the Sunnis, so we changed sides and armed and financed them. The violence DID stop after we left Vietnam. Not right away, but they resolved their differences and now Vietnam is thriving. How do you think Vietnam would look today had we still been there?

However, the way things are going now if we stay the violence may just end, at least in Iraq for good.

On the contrary. Our presence fuels anger. All we've done is bribed the Sunnis to stop shooting at us, but they don;t see us as friends. They are just biding their time to hit back.

Using that method we could have dealt with just about every other dictator that was unfriendly, rinse and repeat.

Actually that is a recipe for disaster, becasue there is no guarantee that the removal of one dictator wil produce a subsequent leader that is friendly to us or puts our interests first. That is the catch with democracy.

The next unfriendly dictator that crops up will know that the US is coming to ruin his party, and we look invincible because we are in and out before they have time to bleed us with geurilla warfare.

Correct me if I;m wring, but are you OK with dictators so long as they are friendly to us? In essence, that is what we have in Egypt and have had in Pakistan. How popular do you think that makes us in the ME?

Lets face it, we will always look like jerks we are America! The world loves to hate us, it is fun, its trendy and it is fashonable.

That's a myth. We like to believe they hate us becasue we are suprior, buitg it's out policies they hate and the fact that we arrogantly believe that we own the world.

How many people were killed as a result of Arab/Muslim violence in the 20th Century vs those killed at the hands of western conflicts? I think you'll find that WWI, WWII, Vietnam, et all accounts for more than 20 times the deaths that took place at the hands of Islamic radicals or Arab dictators.

Again, I was talking about violence in general, human conflict. It is one constant of humanity that will persist regardless of what the US does or doesn't do. However, you are then denying that the ME has been a hotspot for violence for 2000 years? Lets see, from the Trojan War, Thermopylae, to Roman occupation, the Crusades to the Israel-Arab conflicts, Israel-Palestinian conflict, Saddams reign of terror, the Iraq-Iran war and those are just the one I can think of off the top of my head there are many more. What is your point anyway? That Arabs are less violent than Europeans? We are all equally violent and that is my point.

but they don;t see us as friends. They are just biding their time to hit back.

You have no proof of this. Most Iraqis do see us as friends there are many accounts of this written by sources of all political stances. Even if the peace right now is due solely to bribes (and it isn't) what is wrong with that if we get what we want? That is diplomacy which I know you are a huge fan off. We give you something, you give us something in return. The fact that they have upheld their agreement so far shows that they are weak. Also Al Sadr isn't a Sunni and he has been pretty quiet too. Our men and women are doing a great job over there, we finally got a guy who knows how to win over there (Patraus) things are looking up. To deny that, or to recast the surge as a failure only reveals the side you are rooting for.

Because they are soft targets.

So let me get this straight, you believe that the insurgents have no beef with each other and are really only fighting US occupation, but they kill large numbers of innocent Iraqis purely because they are "soft targets"??? They are so hell bent on killing people that they will settle for killing their country men (who according to you they are not fighting) just because killing Americans is hard? What you are saying is like something out of a Joseph Heller novel, something Milo would do for a buck.

Correct me if I;m wring, but are you OK with dictators so long as they are friendly to us?

Yeah, pretty much. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are OK with dictators as long as they are not friendly to us (Saddam)? You have made you position on this clear you don’t think removing Saddam was a good thing and he was not very friendly. On the other hand you gripe about the friendly ones that are friendly (note: I don’t really consider Pakistan a friend, they haven’t really helped us any). So according to you we should fight dictators that are our friends and not the ones that are our sworn enemies. Again, more Joseph Heller stuff.

That's a myth. We like to believe they hate us becasue we are suprior

How is that a myth? Again, it is human nature to hate the super power no matter how benevolent. It is the reason I hated the San Francisco 49s in the 80s and I hate the Patriots now. Likewise, now that San Francisco sucks something awful, it is hard to hate them any more. Back to the US. They hated us when Clinton and Carter were in office just as much as they hated us when Bush or Regan is in office, no matter what good we do in the world we are still hated. And it is quite fashionable to hate America, it is like asking a teenager if they like their parents, even if they do like their parents it is un-cool to admit it to their peers. What are you suggesting our policies be exactly? I've heard a lot from you of what we shouldn’t do, but what should we do?

However, you are then denying that the ME has been a hotspot for violence for 2000 years?

If you want to take that large a timeframe, then you could say that Europe has been one also. The Roman occupation, the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, WWI, WWII, not to mention the Holocaust etc. There make the death toll in the ME pale in comparison, by a long way.

Most Iraqis do see us as friends there are many accounts of this written by sources of all political stances.

That's not proof of anything. Poll show that 60% approve of attacks on US forces, so clearly most of Iraqis DO NOT see us as friends.

Even if the peace right now is due solely to bribes (and it isn't) what is wrong with that if we get what we want?

Because it is unsustainable and as we are seeing now, it is already falling apart.

The fact that they have upheld their agreement so far shows that they are weak.

That mentality is most disturbing. I remember when Sadr offered a ceasefire, and Rice's response was to call him a coward. We want them to stop killing our troops and when they do, yo brand them as weak? If that is our mentality, then diplomacy is never going to work.

To deny that, or to recast the surge as a failure only reveals the side you are rooting for.

First, you can;t win an occupation and waving flags and pom poms iisn't the way to support the troops. The best way to support them is to bring them home.

So let me get this straight, you believe that the insurgents have no beef with each other and are really only fighting US occupation,

I never said that. What I said was that the overwhelming proportiin of attacks are directed at US forces. The largest attacks, or the ones that wreak thge most carnage are those directed at civilians because they are most vulnerbale and such attacks provoke the greatest reactions.

Yeah, pretty much. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are OK with dictators as long as they are not friendly to us (Saddam)?

Dictators only come to power in the first place due to support from benefctors. Saddam came to power (And stayed there) because we and otehr states armed and suported him. The other dctators who we consider friendly, woudl fall in a week if we stopped supporting them.

So no, I am not OK with Saddam, but I don;t believe that going after Saddam was worth the lives of 4000 Americans, 1 millioin Iraqis and 3 trillion is US treasure.

You evidencelty haveb't heard of a cost benefit. Those who suport this war say they are proud of the fact we got rid of Saddam. So am I to take it they are also proud of sending 4 thousand US men and women off to die, started a war that has killed a million people and cost us 3 trillion?

If we coudl have removed Saddam wuickly and cheaply, then I would have been all for it.

So according to you we should fight dictators that are our friends and not the ones that are our sworn enemies.

How about we stop suipporting dictators altogether. Do you realise that the reason we suport dictators is becasue we don't trust democracy? We would rather have a dictator in poace that is nice to us than a democratically elected leader who isn't. That's the way it's always been, It's how empires operate.

That's why empire is such a bad idea.

How is that a myth? Again, it is human nature to hate the super power no matter how benevolent.

There's nothing benevolent about US foreign policy. It says, do it our way or face the consequences. That's tirany.

I've heard a lot from you of what we shouldn’t do, but what should we do?

Simple. Mind our own business and treat others as euquals.

If you want to take that large a timeframe, then you could say that Europe has been one also.

Didn't i say that we are all equally violent before? You are the one trying to say that the ME is more peaceful than Europe ( I know, I attended (and still attend) college and learned that the root of all evil is people of European origin and Western Philosophy), but the truth is we are all the same. We all have the same capacity for violence. Limmited space and resources usually is the catalyst for violence. Europeans had limmited space and resources so there was lots of competition early on through the 1940s. Contrast that with Native Americans: lots of space, lots of resources = les competition = less conflict, less fighting and consequently considerably less innovation, invention and technology compared to their more war-prone European counterparts. Now in the ME we have lots of people competing for limmited wealth/resources, not suprising that there is a lot of fighting there.

That's not proof of anything. Poll show that 60% approve of attacks on US forces, so clearly most of Iraqis DO NOT see us as friends.

So.. objective reporting by a politically diverse group of people is worth nothing, but a poll is the gold standard of proof. Polls are one of the most worthless peices of data ever concieved. Depending on the sample size, the region where the poll was taken, etc. polls can be terribly misleading. Likewise, depending on the political purposes of the poll the group taking the poll numbers can be fudged. Polls are not anymore reliable or objective than news reports. I am more impressed by reports from diverse political stances that say the same thing.

Simple. Mind our own business and treat others as euquals.

But you don't really mean this, you still want us to shell out for AIDS Africa and Tsunamis in Indonesia. The simple fact is, that if we minded our own buisness we would be hated all the same for not getting involved.

That mentality is most disturbing. I remember when Sadr offered a ceasefire, and Rice's response was to call him a coward. We want them to stop killing our troops and when they do, yo brand them as weak? If that is our mentality, then diplomacy is never going to work.

I don't recall this quote, but the fact that Sadr is a non-factor right now is because his power has weakend, there is no doubt about it. He didn't lay down his arms in good will toward us, he did it because he had no other choice.

There's nothing benevolent about US foreign policy.

You have got to be kidding me. The US does no good around the world? Am I to believe that we are the scourge of the Earth. What about Carter in Isreal in the 70s? I know that is guy you must love. I am not saying we are angles (nobody is) but I'd like to see the world do without us: Sorry Africa, take care of AIDS on your own, Have fun West Germany and the rest of Europe getting overrun by the Soviets, Too bad Eithiopia go ahead and starve.

It says, do it our way or face the consequences. That's tirany.

Hardly! Is that why NK has been untouched? Iran.. untouched, we can't even force pakistan to allow our troops in there so we can kill AQ. Maybe you could say we talk a big game, but we sure as hell don't play a big game. It is more like, do it our way or we will sit on our hands indefinately while you build nukes, support terrorist and starve and torture people in your own country. Saddam is the only one we've even tried to do anything about and people like you have been pissed about it the whole time, we have become a pushover. How would you have us do it? Would you say do it your way and we'll live with it? Why would we not want them to do it our way? How can you negotiate if there is no consequense to those that do not hold up their end of the deal, or that do not follow the rules?

So.. objective reporting by a politically diverse group of people is worth nothing, but a poll is the gold standard of proof. Polls are one of the most worthless peices of data ever concieved. Depending on the sample size, the region where the poll was taken, etc. polls can be terribly misleading.

You are comparing apples to oranges. First, you assume that embedded reporters are not biased, which is ridiculous, and their reporting is often contradicted by those who aren't embedded, so clearly they are not objective either.

Polls are conducted by sampling opinions of Iraqis. Perhaps you think those conducting the pools have some agenda here, but the polls I refer to have not been one offs. They repeatedly support the same finding.

Polls are not anymore reliable or objective than news reports. I am more impressed by reports from diverse political stances that say the same thing.

That's your ideology speaking, not your intellect. Firstly, on what basis do base your finding that polls are not more reliable or objective than news reports, especially given the fact that most news reporters these days are glorified stenographers for government sources? Secondly, how can you compare the experiences of a reporter who has spoken to a handful of Iraqis to a poll which is designed to sample a cross section of the population?

But you don't really mean this, you still want us to shell out for AIDS Africa and Tsunamis in Indonesia.

But I do. Minding our own business does not mean we have to be isolated. As I already pointed out to you, Idonesia was helped 10-20 times more by Australia than by us, and no one in their right mind would describve Australia as an empire. You seem to have a problem with drawing the obvious discinction between the two.

I don't recall this quote, but the fact that Sadr is a non-factor right now is because his power has weakend, there is no doubt about it. He didn't lay down his arms in good will toward us, he did it because he had no other choice.

Sadr reprensts the majority Shiites in Iraq. He is in control of the largest militias in Iraq, and given the fact that the government is made up of militias, he is anything but weakened, He is usually described as a firebrand, but the reality is that he is a nationalist and as such, will fight for his country but doesn't want his country torn apart.

The US does no good around the world? Am I to believe that we are the scourge of the Earth.

That's going a bit far. Much of the charity work being done is independent of government policy. NGO's for example, contribute a great deal and do charities. But aid and foreign policy as not one and the same. Aid is often based on a repsonse to a crisis or a disaster, whereas foreign policy is pro active and as we have seen in Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Lebanon, etc., it is overwhelmingly manevolent.

What about Carter in Isreal in the 70s?

Good example of how US foreign policy has shifte since then. That was 30 odd years ago and since then, US foreign policy has shifted so far to teh right that such an accord would be impossible today.

Sorry Africa, take care of AIDS on your own, Have fun West Germany and the rest of Europe getting overrun by the Soviets, Too bad Eithiopia go ahead and starve.

Again, you are confusing aid, and reposes to crisis as opposed to foreign policy. The US did nothing to stop Eastern European countries being invaded by the soviets, and in any case, France and Great Britain were already nuclear powers. No nuclear power will ever be invaded. As for Ethiopia, so you think the US solved that crisis all on it's own? Christ, the US Aid for Africa campaign followed the UK's lead.

Is that why NK has been untouched? Iran.. untouched, we can't even force Pakistan to allow our troops in there so we can kill AQ.

We left NK untouched becasue the neocons aren't interested in NK. No oil there. Notice how we sat on our hands while they detonated a nuke, yet we are all over Iran like a rash even though they're not even enriching for nukes?

We haven't touched Pakistan, becasue we have had a puppet in power there doing our bidding.

That's the problem with Empire, Foreign policy becomes disconnected from reality and becomes inconsistent. We are not fighting a war on terror. We are using the branding of war on terror to go after governments that have what we want and are do not put our interests before their own. In the cas of Iran, we would have gone after them long ago had things gone smoothly in Iraq, but the quagmire in Iraq has made us face the limits of our power. If we can't pacify a weak country of 20 million with no military, how are we going to take on one fo 60 million that does?

Sorry to break it to you, but we do support terrorist. Look up the MEK. Look up Jundulla. We have no problem with terrorists, just the ones who don;t work for us.

Saddam is the only one we've even tried to do anything about and people like you have been pissed about it the whole time, we have become a pushover.

Are you serious?

What about Mossadegh (1953)
Arbenz (1952)
Iraq in the 1960's
Allende
Vietnman
Ecuador
Brazil
Korea
Panama
Nicaragua
Grenada
Need I go on?

How can you negotiate if there is no consequense to those that do not hold up their end of the deal, or that do not follow the rules?

What rules? Our rules? We seem quite happy to spit on the rules when they are someone else's.

Did you know that the US is the only country even convited in an international cout fo state terororism for it's attacks on Nicaragua, and and we just ignored them.

We are quite happy for other countries to be suject to war crimes proceedings, yet we argue that we will not allow US citizens to be subject to their juristiction.

As far as negotiations go, our policy towards Iran is that we will talk to them only when they have met all of our demands, In other words, we will negotiate with them once they have nothing to offer.

Face it. We are out of control. We just dont see it, or haven;t seen it until now because no one has been game to hold a mirror to us.

Things are now changing of course.