[Dark_crow]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Scores die' in Iraq bomb attacks

At least 175 people have been killed in a series of suicide bomb attacks in northern Iraq, Iraq's military says.

Tensions between the sect and local Muslims have grown since a Yazidi girl was reportedly stoned by her community in April for converting to Islam.

At the same time another insurgent attack in the capital, some 50 gunmen in uniform were reported to have kidnapped a deputy oil minister and several other officials.

At the same time a suicide bomb attack on a Baghdad bridge that sent cars plunging into the water and killed at least 10 people.

Is there any hope of civilizing these barbarians in the next year or two?

Separately, three Iraqi ministers from the mixed Sunni-Shia Iraqi National List of former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi unexpectedly attended a government session.

They were among five ministers who last week began the boycott of Nouri Maliki's government over what they said was its failure to end sectarian violence.

Everyday I wonder more why Bush thinks it was wise to attack Iraq.

[BABRAM]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Scores die' in Iraq bomb attacks

At least 175 people have been killed in a series of suicide bomb attacks in northern Iraq, Iraq's military says.

Tensions between the sect and local Muslims have grown since a Yazidi girl was reportedly stoned by her community in April for converting to Islam.

At the same time another insurgent attack in the capital, some 50 gunmen in uniform were reported to have kidnapped a deputy oil minister and several other officials.

At the same time a suicide bomb attack on a Baghdad bridge that sent cars plunging into the water and killed at least 10 people.

Is there any hope of civilizing these barbarians in the next year or two?

Separately, three Iraqi ministers from the mixed Sunni-Shia Iraqi National List of former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi unexpectedly attended a government session.

They were among five ministers who last week began the boycott of Nouri Maliki's government over what they said was its failure to end sectarian violence.

Everyday I wonder more why Bush thinks it was wise to attack Iraq.

More sad news, but it's exactly what I expect and I'm not one to blame the media for reporting facts. I disagree with the way Bush attacked Iraq in this mismanaged war campaign. Schwarzkopf himself advised of this very eventual scenario. Personally I was satisfied with the removal of Hussein. Our president is so dedicated to bringing those to justice for crimes against humanity. Bravo! BTW, where the hell is OBL? I haven't forgotten about that sob and I certainly haven't forgotten 9/11! Anyway back to the Iraq issue: I've said it for years now, Bush apparently thinks Iraq is going to become the fifty-first state of the U.S.. Best scenario considering the ongoing mess, is that we get out with another military base in the mid-East region. But that's no guarantee if under constant attacks, which has been the case. And we can't be there to babysit their govt forever, nor should we.



Bobby

[Dark_crow]

More sad news, but it's exactly what I expect and I'm not one to blame the media for reporting facts. I disagree with the way Bush attacked Iraq in this mismanaged war campaign. Schwarzkopf himself advised of this very eventual scenario. Personally I was satisfied with the removal of Hussein. Our president is so dedicated to bringing those to justice for crimes against humanity. Bravo! BTW, where the hell is OBL?! I haven't forgotten about that sob and I certainly haven't forgotten 9/11! Anyway back to the Iraq issue: I've said it for years now, Bush apparently thinks Iraq is going to become the fifty-first state of the U.S.. Best scenario considering the ongoing mess, is that we get out with another military base in the mid-East region. But that's no guarantee if under constant attacks, which has been the case. And we can't be there to babysit their govt forever, nor should we.



Bobby

“We'd be like a dinosaur in a tar pit” were Schwarzkopf’s words and; “if you remember the Vietnam War, we had no international legitimacy for what we did. As a result, we, first of all, lost the battle in world public opinion. Eventually, we lost the battle at home.”.

One problem is that America is not fighting one enemy, but many. In retrospect, I see that all the arguments against going in at the end of the Gulf War reflect the exact situation in which America finds itself today.

What do you think motivated the administration… raw emotion?

[BABRAM]

“What do you think motivated the administration… raw emotion?

Personally, looking back, I think he went head fast into the situation. A stubborn President might be considered good to a certain degree, but apparently his mouth was moving when it should had been shut with ears wide open.



Bobby

[Choux]

Iraq, a terrible, terrible avoidable disaster.

Blindly going int o a war of adventurism without adequate plug in to **realilty**is the cause.

NO need for me to go into my educational posting about the Iraqi situation... everyone knows the ugly truh now.

[tomder55]

It's been a long time since I had to use this information but it is useful to reintroduce it from time to time.

The reason Bush went into Iraq and his father didn't is that the political calculation had greatly changed between the end of the Gulf War and 9-11 . There was no al- Qaeda in 1990 and no connection between Saddam and bin-Laden . Why did Bush think that there was a connection between al_Qaeda and Saddam ? Perhaps because that was the conventional wisdom of the former administration,the intelligence agencies , and the MSM prior to 9-11 ?

January 14, 1999, ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported during a prime time telecast how a few months after the embassy bombings in Africa and U.S. retaliation against Sudan, bin Laden “reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan.” MacVicar said “ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.”

ABC News: Iraqi intelligence chief met with bin Laden in December 1998

Stephen Hayes at Weekly Standard wrote a book about the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam and also laid out much of the case in a separate essay .

The Connection

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:


Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:


Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:


Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.

He further points out that an indictment that the Clinton Adm. Made against Bin Laden clearly mentioned the link to Saddam :

Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Read the whole Hayes article . What he points out was the conventional wisdom prior to the invasion. Since the invasion there has been a different spin from the MSM and the Democrats .

The founder of al-Qaida in Mesopotamia was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.He was in Iraq before we were. He fled to Iraq because he, and many others like him were chased out of Afghanistan. He was also treated in a Baghdad hospital for wounds he received in Afghanistan. He settled there either by consent of Saddam or because Saddam was in no position to deny him . The group he was working with;Ansar -al Islam ,was operational with consent by Saddam well before OIF.

Zarqawi regularly wrote letters to Ayman al-Zawahiri ,some of which we intercepted . Those letters detailed his plan to incite civil war in the new Iraq by attacking the Shia . To a degree he was successful in the strategy because at the other end there was as we have learned outside agitation by Iran . What is the common connection . The violence is being perpetrated by non-Iraqi agitators.

It is useful to note that al-Zawahiri cautioned Zarqawi at one point that the violence he was doing was so gruesome that it could turn his potential Sunni allies in Iraq against him .This too has come to pass and has been a major factor in the success of the "surge".

Yes you can point to a single attack and claim progress is not happening ;but the truth is that we are still a month away from the first report from the commander ,Gen. Petraeus of what should be an extended operation ,and both US and Iraqi civilian casualties are down. The MSM has even been a reluctant reporter of that fact. The truth is that cities that had been AQM safe havens like . Fallujah or Baqubah have been largely cleaned out ;and are under local control by folks who want nothing to do with the extremists.

Attacks against civilians in a relatively unguarded section of the nation may be sensational ,but I gurarantee the people in the regions around Kurdistan will not let this type of attack become the rule.

What is being achieved in Iraq ? Even if the political situation is unresolved we have almost completed whipping the al -Qaeda forces in the country and discredited them in the eyes of their former natural allies .The only thing that can stop us at this point is ourselves .

[excon]

What is being acheived in Iraq ? Even if the political situation is unresolved we have almost completed whipping the al -Qaeda forces in the country .The only thing taht can stop us at this point is ourselves .

Hello tom:

Ahha! Is THAT the reason we're there?? To whip Al Qaeda? I been wondering...

Then we should be able to come home soon, right?? And let the Shia and the Sunni's have their civil war. That's got nothing to do with us, right?

But, somehow, I think you'll move the goalposts again and find another reason why we should stay. As a matter of fact, I'm sure you will

excon

[Dark_crow]

Iraq, a terrible, terrible avoidable disaster.

Blindly going int o a war of adventurism without adequate plug in to **realilty**is the cause.

NO need for me to go into my educational posting about the Iraqi situation....everyone knows the ugly truh now.

You probably are not aware, but maybe you are, and what made me remember was your comment, “educational posting”. I have been reading “Der Fuehrer” again, a great history book written by Konrad Heiden and, I was reminded that the great savior of the German people before ww1 and ww2 was to be science/technology and education.

Alas, Europe had its Nietchze, Hegel, and Schopenhauer…we our Bush.
:)

[Dark_crow]

It's been a long time since I had to use this information but it is useful to reintroduce it from time to time.

The reason Bush went into Iraq and his father didn't is that the political calculation had greatly changed between the end of the Gulf War and 9-11 . There was no al- Qaeda in 1990 and no connection between Saddam and bin-Laden . Why did Bush think that there was a connection between al_Qaeda and Saddam ? Perhaps because that was the conventional wisdom of the former administration,the intelligence agencies , and the MSM prior to 9-11 ?

January 14, 1999, ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported during a prime time telecast how a few months after the embassy bombings in Africa and U.S. retaliation against Sudan, bin Laden “reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan.” MacVicar said “ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.”

ABC News: Iraqi intelligence chief met with bin Laden in December 1998

Stephen Hayes at Weekly Standard wrote a book about the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam and also laid out much of the case in a seperate essay .

The Connection



He further points out that an indictment that the Clinton Adm. made against Bin Laden clearly mentioned the link to Saddam :



Read the whole Hayes article . What he points out was the conventional wisdom prior to the invasion. Since the invasion there has been a different spin from the MSM and the Democrats .

The founder of al-Qaida in Mesopotamia was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.He was in Iraq before we were. He fled to Iraq because he, and many others like him were chased out of Afghanistan. He was also treated in a Baghdad hospital for wounds he received in Afghanistan. He settled there either by consent of Saddam or because Saddam was in no position to deny him . The group he was working with;Ansar -al Islam ,was operational with consent by Saddam well before OIF.

Zarqawi regularily wrote letters to Ayman al-Zawahiri ,some of which we intercepted . Those letters detailed his plan to incite civil war in the new Iraq by attacking the Shia . To a degree he was successful in the strategy because at the other end there was as we have learned outside agitation by Iran . What is the common connection . The violence is being perpetrated by non-Iraqi agitators.

It is useful to note that al-Zawahiri cautioned Zarqawi at one point that the violence he was doing was so gruesome that it could turn his potential Sunni allies in Iraq against him .This too has come to pass and has been a major factor in the success of the "surge".

Yes you can point to a single attack and claim progress is not happening ;but the truth is that we are still a month away from the first report from the commander ,Gen. Petraeus of what should be an extended operation ,and both US and Iraqi civilian casualties are down. The MSM has even been a reluctant reporter of that fact. The truth is that cities that had been AQM safe havens like . Fallujah or Baqubah have been largely cleaned out ;and are under local control by folks who want nothing to do with the extremists.

Attacks against civilians in a relatively unguarded section of the nation may be sensational ,but I gurarantee the people in the regions around Kurdistan will not let this type of attack become the rule.

What is being acheived in Iraq ? Even if the political situation is unresolved we have almost completed whipping the al -Qaeda forces in the country and discredited them in the eyes of their former natural allies .The only thing taht can stop us at this point is ourselves .

Tom, I am not denying that the ‘cause’ was not justified, but only that the circumstances had, and has, not changed from the strategist standpoint from the initial reason for not entering Baghdad and disposing Saddam and the Bathe Party; which by the way was also justified at the time. What I’m suggesting is that the Administration brushed aside the very reason that kept us from destroying Iraq in the first place. And in the heat of emotion did what was earlier considered reckless

[tomder55]

With all due respect . That smacks of "realist" thinking . I thought you were a champion of the removal of Saddam for humanitarian reasons.
Excon just made a comment that because I explained a single reason that is my only rational . It is not . When I said the political calculation had greatly changed , I meant that the combined factors of Saddam's relationship with terrorism and the issue of wmds had tipped the balance in favor of invasion even given the factors that made GHW Bush reluctant .

People who have followed my postings from AW know I was critical of the immediate post war occupation .I had thought the plan was to have the expatriates in exile assume control of the country . I never expected the US to set up a Viceroy .I think that delayed where we are by about a year and 1/2 .

Nonetheless the big dispute appears to be if the war internal to Iraq in the form of a civil war ,or if it is primarily against jihadists and infiltration by Iran . I think it is the later .

BTW ;as I have also pointed out before, it was quite immoral for GHW Bush to incite the Iraqis to open rebellion if he had no intention of supporting them.

[excon]

Excon just made a comment that because I explained a single reason that is my only rational . It is not .

Hello again, tom:

I know it's more complicated than that. I just get tired of typing. You know that I look to you for in depth research, and I respect your opinions.

excon

[Dark_crow]

With all due respect . That smacks of "realist" thinking . I thought you were a champion of the removal of Saddam for humanitarian reasons.
Excon just made a comment that because I explained a single reason that is my only rational . It is not . When I said the political calculation had greatly changed , I meant that the combined factors of Saddam's relationship with terrorism and the issue of wmds had tipped the balance in favor of invasion even given the factors that made GHW Bush reluctant .

People who have followed my postings from AW know I was critical of the immediate post war occupation .i had thought the plan was to have the expatriates in exile assume control of the country . I never expected the US to set up a Viceroy .I think that delayed where we are by about a year and 1/2 .

Nonetheless the big dispute appears to be if the war internal to Iraq in the form of a civil war ,or if it is primarily against jihadists and infiltration by Iran . I think it is the later .

BTW ;as I have also pointed out before, it was quite immoral for GHW Bush to incite the Iraqis to open rebellion if he had no intention of supporting them.

Yes, by every concept of the terms, Saddam ruled a ‘Fascist National Socialist government’ and I was, and am, for destroying that Nazi like group from power, and any other like it.

Being ignorant, at the time, of the reasons that Tyrant, and Tyrannical government was not ended at the time of the Gulf War, I supposed the Bush Administration right in what it was doing and applauded them as they entered Iraq.

Please understand I am speaking from retrospect and make no claim to having said, “I told you so”.

A ‘Realist’ viewpoint, no, I think pragmatist would be more apt; as I pointed out, the pragmatic reasons for not destroying Iraq had, and has not changed since the Gulf War.

Most of the people in Iraq are as barbarous as to deserve our leaving them to the mess; people who use their left hand for toilet paper, the right for eating utensils, and stone people to death with both. I have no sympathy for them, let them eat sand for all I care, leave them with a note saying, call us in 50 years.

But of course American Capitol wants to finance the rebuilding of the country, so I suppose we will continue for their benefit.

[Starman]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Scores die' in Iraq bomb attacks

Is there any hope of civilizing these barbarians in the next year or two?

It took Rome approx 200 years and rivers of blood flowing on both sides to "civilize" the so-called "barbarians" of the Iberian Peninsula. On the other hand, with their gladiatorial customs, and seemingly insatiable thirst for ruthless conquest, Romans themselves needed to be civilized. In my opinion

Hispania - Province of the Roman Empire

[Dark_crow]

It took Rome approx 200 years and rivers of blood flowing on both sides to "civilize" the so-called "barbarians" of the Iberian Penninsula. On the other hand, with their gladiatorial customs, and seemingly insatiable thirst for ruthless conquest, Romans themselves needed to be civilized. IMHO

Hispania - Province of the Roman Empire

Ohhhh Mr. Starman, how you jest; I don't know anything about such manly matters; I'm majoring in Home Economics. But My Auntie is always correcting me when I don't point out when something is relative, Soooo, when you say the Romans themselves needed to be civilized; who would that be relative to?
Delilah:)

[Starman]

Ohhhh Mr. Starman, how you jest; I don't know anything about such manly matters; I'm majoring in Home Economics. But My Auntie is always correcting me when I don't point out when something is relative, Soooo, when you say the Romans themselves needed to be civilized; who would that be relative to?
Delilah:)

You are right, barbarism is relative. My commentary seems a bit off topic. So I will delete it. Opps, too late since you quoted it. My original intention was to show just how long such campaigns can take against determined resistance. Then as an afterthought I made the mistake of adding the civilization comment which can be misunderstood.

[Dark_crow]

You are right, barbarism is relative. My commentary seems a bit off topic. So I will delete it. Opps, too late since yoiu quoted it. My original intention was to show just how long such campaigns can take against determined resistance. Then as an afterthought I made the mistake of adding the civilization comment which can be misunderstood.

My Auntie thinks you are SOoo right, and that that begs the question-since you can't teach a Dog New Tricks, what are we doing trying given the cost of life and suffering?

[Starman]

My Auntie thinks you are SOoo right, and that that begs the question-since you can't teach a Dog New Tricks, what are we doing trying given the cost of life and suffering?

When the Romans started their campaign to subdue the Iberian Peninsula they had no idea it would take two hundred years. The weird thing about this is that the Roman people didn't want a decision to withdraw. They refused peace because they perceived a peaceful settlement via allliance or treaty as humiliating. Nothing less than total victoiry via subjugation regardless of the cost in life would suffice. In contrast, the American public differs in its view of this present situation. Very likely because the American people value life much more than the Romans did.

BTW
I am not saying that both situations are identical, only pointing out the contrast between the Roman population's attitude and the American attitude when in relation to the sacrifice of life in military matters. Also, how a campaign which was deemed a quick one at the outset has potential to extend intself beyond predicatbility.

[Dark_crow]

When the Romans started their campaign to subdue the Iberian Penninsula they had no idea it would take two hundred years. The weird thing about this is that the Roman people didn't want a decision to withdraw. They refused peace because they perceived a peaceful settlement via allliance or treaty as humiliating. Nothing less than total victoiry via subjugation regardless of the cost in life would suffice. In contrast, the American public differs in its view of this present situation. Very likely because the American people value life much more than the Romans did.

BTW
I am not saying that both situations are identical, only pointing out the contrast between the Roman population's attitude and the American attitude when in relation to the sacrifice of life in military matters. Also, how a campaign which was deemed a quick one at the outset has potential to extend intself beyond predicatbility.

I suppose more than one opinion can be drawn from contrasting the two Empires, and of course there have been, and in many different context. You choose to use the “Rome wasn't built in a Day” context, to answer the question as to the why of Iraq's population and their inability to unite under one government. Where I think you have hit the nail on the head is that America did not Invade Iraq as traditional conquers but rather to rout Terrorism.

I don't really think this goes to the problem of its failure, but rather to America's motive.

I suggest the failure is based on the wise decision of America's Leaders who recognized the inherent tribal problems in Iraq at the time of the Gulf War, among other issues, but who at the start of the Iraqi War acted on the emotion of 9/11 and completely ignored their previous wisdom.

[Starman]

I suppose more than one opinion can be drawn from contrasting the two Empires, and of course there have been, and in many different context. You choose to use the “Rome wasn't built in a Day” context, to answer the question as to the why of Iraq's population and their inability to unite under one government. Where I think you have hit the nail on the head is that America did not Invade Iraq as traditional conquers but rather to rout Terrorism.

I don't really think this goes to the problem of its failure, but rather to America's motive.

I suggest the failure is based on the wise decision of America's Leaders who recognized the inherent tribal problems in Iraq at the time of the Gulf War, among other issues, but who at the start of the Iraqi War acted on the emotion of 9/11 and completely ignored their previous wisdom.

There are those who say that the motive in of invading was to control Iraq's petroleum output and that focusing on that goal permitted the Taliban to recover and prosper. Others even go so far as to say that the 9/11 incident was perpetrated by our own government in order to have an excuse to invade Iraq and control the petroleum resources. Still others accuse the USA of simply seeking revenge for loss of American life due to the 9/11 attack. There are those who say that the invasion was a personal vendetta thing carried out by Bush because of Saddam's attempted murder of his father. While others believe the weapons of mass destruction explanation given by the Bush administration.

Rome, of course, when it wished to invade other countries first classified them as a threat to their national security. Once that perception was in place, any aggression by the Roman legions could be classified as self defense. This sounds very familiar since national security is the reason why USA forces are in the Middle East. Why they were stationed in Europe long after W.W.II ended, and why American military bases exist all over the world.


The protection of national interests and national security is the driving motive which justifies military action.

Iran and Korea threaten to acquire nuclear capability--national security.
Saddam invades Kuwait--National security USA interests
Regional imbalances of power--National interests

Rome proceeded in the same way. Iberia was said to be a threat to Roman security. That justified an invasion and long drawn-out campaign. It became the Roman Modus Operandi. Gaul had to be subdued -- national security. Nations in the Middle East such as Macedonia and Greece had to be invaded--Roman national Security. Egypt had to be brought into line--Roman National grain resources interests.

So the difference in modus operand is what you say?


As for the interplay between domestic policy and foreign, foreign policy-makers have always sought to gain American public's approval before embarking on foreign policies involving loss of life. However, in relation to economical issues, they have shown
Little concern about how American public opinion. For example, who consulted the American people concerning the relocation of manufacturing firms to Communist China?


Certainly if job opportunities are going to be lost, the public who will be affected should be taken into account. Or the allocation of taxpayer funds as foreign aid to Korea? In that area Americans seem to be totally ignored and political constituency is treated as irrelevant. It's only when blood has to be spilled that the foreign policy makers put for some effort to gain public approval.