Add Iraq's elected leaders

[Texsox]

The Pentagon released a report recently saying that the civilian casualty toll was on the order of 26,000 since the start of 2004.

 

I consider that to be a minimum number, given the amount of deaths which are likely handled by families or who's bodies are never recovered.  What the maximum is, I'm in no position to estimate.

 

Iraqbodycount.net, which only compiles press accounts of civilian casualties, puts the number recorded by the press since the start of the war at 26,000 to 30000.  Again, same problem - if a guy gets gunned down in an alley, it probably won't m ake their count.

 

Wow, how many do you think would be dying if the American miitary pulled out and all the terrorists stopped attacking US troops?

[Balta1701]

Wow, how many do you think would be dying if the American miitary pulled out and all the terrorists stopped attacking US troops?

See, now that is the real question...if we pulled out, would it leave the Iraqis totally defenseless and would the state fall apart, or would the Iraqis be able to step forwards at all?

 

There are plenty of groups that could seize power if we were gone and probably actually enforce a stronger hold than we've got...the Badr corps (the militia of the SCIRI...one of the main Shi'a parties) has already been able to enforce some order in the southern part, the Kurdish militias could probably hold things together in the north...leaving, as usual, the Sunni question.

 

One could make an argument that the U.S., by keeping troops there, is only making the situation far worse. First, we're a major target for the insurgents and our presence there just keeps creating more and more of them. Second, we're occasionally working to try to prevent the Shia from using Saddam's tactics to break apart the Sunnis (when the western press finds out about things). Third, one could also say that the Iraqi troops and police have no real reason to step forwards, risk their lives, and do the hard job of actually trying to restore order when they can just lay back, be lazy, and let the U.S. troops pick up the slack and risk their own lives.

 

I don't know whether or not that's the truth, and we probably won't know until Bush is forced to pull out the majority of the U.S. forces to try to prevent a total disaster for the Republicans next November.

[southsider2k5]

There will be a phased withdrawal throughout the course of 2006.  If there are more than 50-70'000 troops there at the time of the US midterms Id be utterly shocked.

Bush will pull out troops next year......book it.  For no other reason than if he doesn't have a significant withdrawal to point to come the mid terms the Republicans are gonna take a pasting on par with the one they dished out in 1994.

 

They have already talked about drawing down troops. But then were told that it was just some evil ploy to distract us or something like that... I lost track of what evil it was covering up this time.

[Controlled Chaos]

They have already talked about drawing down troops.  But then were told that it was just some evil ploy to distract us or something like that... I lost track of what evil it was covering up this time.

 

they lie about going to war, they lie about the pullout....they love spilt american blood. The Evil Party...rounding up your votes for 2008!!

[southsider2k5]

they lie about going to war, they lie about the pullout....they love spilt american blood.  The Evil Party...rounding up your votes for 2008!!

 

Meanwhile the evil plotting GWB and Dick Cheney plot on...

 

[kapkomet]

Ahhh yes, we're all evil bastards. Thanks for reminding me.

[Balta1701]

Jesus...they not only called for a pullout timetable...um...Link...

 

Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a ``legitimate right'' of resistance.

 

The final communique, hammered out at the end of three days of negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League, condemned terrorism, but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

 

The participants in Cairo agreed on ``calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation'' and end terror attacks.

 

The conference was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers, as well as leading Sunni politicians.

[southsider2k5]

Umm this part was kind of important and renders the rest of the negotiations useless.

 

should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

 

I would say targeting people voting, the police, medical personel responding to a bombing etc would all fall under that category. They have been targeting anyone and everyone, not JUST military personel.

[Balta1701]

Umm this part was kind of important and renders the rest of the negotiations useless.

I would say targeting people voting, the police, medical personel responding to a bombing etc would all fall under that category.  They have been targeting anyone and everyone, not JUST military personel.

Of course "They" have...if by they you mean everyone in Iraq who's currently trying to blow anyone up. But if I understand that correctly, the Iraqi leadership gave endorsement to actions solely against the U.S. forces there. So as long as you're not targeting Iraqis....

[sec159row2]

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Iraqi leaders, meeting at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, urged an end to violence in the country and demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq.

 

 

Why are these guys meeting in Cairo????

 

I say pull out the troops when these guys have the balls to meet in bagdad...

[FlaSoxxJim]

They met in Cairo because the Arab League hosted the pre-election reconcilliary talks between Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish Iraqi fractions.

[southsider2k5]

Of course "They" have...if by they you mean everyone in Iraq who's currently trying to blow anyone up.  But if I understand that correctly, the Iraqi leadership gave endorsement to actions solely against the U.S. forces there.  So as long as you're not targeting Iraqis....

 

Yes the Iraqi government is endorsing the murder of all of its own and US soliders. That makes total sense.

[sec159row2]

They met in Cairo because the Arab League hosted the pre-election reconcilliary talks between Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish Iraqi fractions.

 

why aren't these meetings held in Bagdad?... I here it is beautiful this time of year

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yes the Iraqi government is endorsing the murder of all of its own and US soliders.  That makes total sense.

It's not the Iraqi government, and not an endorsement per se, more of a concession to the Sunni that are the source of the insurgency. Clearly an argument can be made that the US forces are functioning as an "institution designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens," and the Iraqi police and security forces even moreso. But not specifically spelling that out in the joint statement coming out of the reconcilliatory meeting is an appeasement to the Sunnis.

 

And a troubling one at that. But it should serve as an indication that, even from the perspective of the elected Iraqi officials, our continued presence is met with resentment.

 

SS2k5, your Pinky and the Brain ref was cute. But how far off do you think that is from the truth? It doesn't take a tinfoil-hatter to know that gaining or losing control of the 3rd largest oil reserve in the world (Iraq) may well be the difference between whether or not America gets crushed under China's bootheels over the next 20 years or so.

 

And control can come in many forms. If American companies land the contracts to rebuild the oil infrastructure, we control the oil (Iraq would make money as well, but so would the American firms. Plus we could negotiate near-exclusive rights to the oil so long as we are paying market value for it.). If on the other hand China's CNOOC takes that money from, say, the failed attempt to buy Unocal and instead uses it to outbid western companies on partnering with Iraq in reconstruction, then the landscape changes quite dramatically.

 

The Neocon failure, despite themselves, would be absolute if that were to happen.

[FlaSoxxJim]

why aren't these meetings held in Bagdad?...  I here it is beautiful this time of year

The permanent headquarters of the Arab League is in Cairo.

 

As for the temperature snarkiness ( )Cairo sits about 3º latitude further south than Bahgdad, and is about 2-3ºF warmer at this time of the year.

[Mercy!]

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Iraqi leaders, meeting at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, urged an end to violence in the country and demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq.

Why are these guys meeting in Cairo???? 

 

I say pull out the troops when these guys have the balls to meet in bagdad...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps of more relevance for our discussion, the only way our own elected American officials can appear in Iraq for meetings is to fly in unannounced, be met with a substantial contingent of privately-contracted security forces, hunker down somewhere under U.S. military control for a couple of hours, do some quick photo ops, and then get out of the country before nightfall. And who can blame them?

[southsider2k5]

It's not the Iraqi government, and not an endorsement per se, more of a concession to the Sunni that are the source of the insurgency.  Clearly an argument can be made that the US forces are functioning as an "institution designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens," and the Iraqi police and security forces even moreso.  But not specifically spelling that out in the joint statement coming out of the reconcilliatory meeting is an appeasement to the Sunnis.

 

And a troubling one at that.  But it should serve as an indication that, even from the perspective of the elected Iraqi officials, our continued presence is met with resentment.

 

SS2k5, your Pinky and the Brain ref was cute.  But how far off do you think that is from the truth?  It doesn't take a tinfoil-hatter to know that gaining or losing control of the 3rd largest oil reserve in the world (Iraq) may well be the difference between whether or not America gets crushed under China's bootheels over the next 20 years or so.

 

And control can come in many forms.  If American companies land the contracts to rebuild the oil infrastructure, we control the oil (Iraq would make money as well, but so would the American firms.  Plus we could negotiate near-exclusive rights to the oil so long as we are paying market value for it.).  If on the other hand China's CNOOC takes that money from, say, the failed attempt to buy Unocal and instead uses it to outbid western companies on partnering with Iraq in reconstruction, then the landscape changes quite dramatically.

 

The Neocon failure, despite themselves, would be absolute if that were to happen.

 

On a completely different note, you brought up the tinfoil hatters... I have a completely different direction on China and the tinfoil hat if you are in the mood for amusement.

 

When it comes to defeating China, I honestly believe that GWB or whoever is calling the shots is taking a page out of Reagan's playbook and is more interested in controling the capital/commodities prices to smash China's economy than they are in who controls the oil fields.

 

Stick with me here for a sec.

 

One of the most interesting things that Ron Reagan did to take down the iron curtian was the "encourage" commodity prices to plunge. This had a huge adverse affect on USSR as they were a massive exporter of commodities and capital goods, and were highly dependant on those wares to fund their huge governmental budgets and big need to import food stuffs. It also made their govermental institutions which kept most of the country employed around those exports incredible money losers. Think about it. Oil got down to $13 bbl, Gold and Silver fell to lows they hadn't seen in decades, steel became as cheap as it had been since the 50's, etc. This, not something like perstroika, was the death knell of the Soviet Union. Their economy collapsed because their exports became worthless, and they couldn't fund their country. The economic collapse led to the desparate measures which opened up their economy.

 

I believe China is the same idea, except in reverse. China is a HUGE net importer of capital/commodity goods. Their economy is predicated on cheap materials coming in, being turned into good which they export to fund their government and their near full governmental employment. Now that has dropped off over the years, as China has let some institutions fail, but nothing like there would be in a pure profit driven system. The goverment still absorbs the lions share of those losses. Now I believe that the US wants to see all of those things that China needs to thrive as expensive as possible, as they don't have the disposable income to absorb the inflation in the prices of capital and commodities. Now if you look at those samethings, we all know how expensive energies are right now, but Gold and silver are at 20 years highs, steel is as expensive as it has been in a long time, etc.

 

Granted this is my theory, but I think there is a solid basis in conservative governance and economics to back me up here. It could all be coincidence, but I don't really believe that.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Interesting theory. I'm not sure if there is anything to it. But then again, just a few short years ago the Flying Spaghetti Monster was scoffed at as well.

[southsider2k5]

Interesting theory.  I'm not sure if there is anything to it.  But then again, just a few short years ago the Flying Spaghetti Monster was scoffed at as well. 

 

Luckily I have my pirate hat on today ARRRRRRRRRG

[Texsox]

You know, the FSM, with his appendages, is the only other entity that could produce as many posts as SS. Or perhaps they are one in the same

[FlaSoxxJim]

FSM2k5?!?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Is this shaping up to be a Neocon nightmare or what?:

 

Iran's supreme leader urged the Iraqi president on Tuesday to seek a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, saying the American presence harms the country.

 

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei met with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who is paying a three-day visit to Iran, a country the United States accuses of meddling in Iraq but that is closely allied to Iraq's new Shiite and Kurd-dominated leadership.

 

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

 

I'm sure the administration and the PNAC brain trust was tickled pink when Iraqi Prime Minister al-Jaafari and a gaggle of cabinet ministersmade a cordial social visit to Tehran this week too.

 

And the big winner in the Iraq War: Iran! :banghead

 

They never would have been able to topple Saddam and get the Shiites (and Kurds) into positions of power.

 

I guess we can be happy we're playing an important role in bringing neighbors together.