Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

25 police killed in western Iraq

World Mar. 05, 2012 - 04:45PM JST ( 17 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

17 Comments

0

hot_dog_dynastyMar. 05, 2012 - 08:11PM JST

Iraq is such a shining beacon of success for the believers in regime change.

Its a good thing Saddam is gone, or the number of dead would at least be 1 million times more!

Sarcasm off.
-4

SerranoMar. 05, 2012 - 08:22PM JST

Iraq's a lot better than it was. No more worrying about WMD or invasions of neighboring countries by Iraq.

"gunmen wearing military style uniforms"

They have no honor.
0

MadvertsMar. 05, 2012 - 09:37PM JST

"No more worrying about WMD or invasions of neighboring countries by Iraq."

He couldn't have invaded his mothers kitchen.

But I agree Iraq is better off now than in 06 and 07. Hopefully they will reign in the terrorists the invasion put there and hopefully stamp on corruption, notably the AWOL vice president of Iraq...
0

SerranoMar. 05, 2012 - 09:57PM JST

Iraq is better off now than at any time since Saddam took over.

"the terrorists the invasion put there"

The invasion put them there, did it? What about the terrorists in the rest of the world? There haven't been invasions in all other places where terrorists have struck, how did they get put there?　lol
0

MadvertsMar. 05, 2012 - 10:40PM JST

"The invasion put them there, did it?"

Yup, it certainly did. Not one suicide bombing before. They've had over one thousand since. Only one hundred or so per year. What's that, about 9 per month? Maybe more.....

"What about the terrorists in the rest of the world?"

The subject is Iraq. Any attempts at obfuscation will be shot down.
0

SuperLibMar. 05, 2012 - 11:23PM JST

You'll mostly find terrorism in countries that are somewhere between liberal democracy and totalitarian. Part of the transition from one to the other generally opens up the door. If you want to see a place with no terrorism, just take a lot at North Korea.

Madverts, what I still have never heard from you is a way in which Iraq could have avoided sectarian violence and terrorism while removing Saddam, no matter how he was removed. Had it been a popular uprising by the people one could argue that the bloodshed would have been a lot worse without international forces trying to keep them apart and brokering the transition. That's to say that these two things were inevitable no matter how you slice it, invasion or not. The only solution I can think of is perpetual dictatorship, unless you can enlighten me.
0

oginomeMar. 05, 2012 - 11:29PM JST

Iraq is better off now than at any time since Saddam took over.

No, it's not.
0

RomeoRMar. 05, 2012 - 11:43PM JST

No, it's not.

Tell that to all your Kurdish friends.

RR
2

MadvertsMar. 06, 2012 - 12:18AM JST

" Had it been a popular uprising by the people one could argue that the bloodshed would have been a lot worse without international forces trying to keep them apart and brokering the transition. "

I don't see that as a given, although one of the major intellectual arguing points against the war, heh, if you remember, was that the borders had been drawn up by the Brits a century before with the exact intention of promoting discord bewteen the ethnic factions. Divide and conquer and tally-ho.

Even the bloodiest of the Arab Spring uprisings such as Libya aren't suffering from terrorists running amok setting off simaltaneous suicide attacks lefr, right and centre. I've already asked the question what would have happened if Iraq had been left to it's own devices and toppled Saddam themselves last year? More speculation to add to your own I guess. The fact rer

I think we've argued about this now so many times we're about to be awarded honourary citizenship, but I think we'll both be passing on it in view of the current state. I'd like to be optimistic, but I don't feel I can be for the minute, my position on the invasion regardless.
1

MadvertsMar. 06, 2012 - 12:20AM JST

"Tell that to all your Kurdish friends."

Wrong again. The Kurds were running an autonomous region thanks to NATO no-fly zones.

You might find the vice-president of the new Iraq holed-up 'roung thataway mind, there's at least one arrest warrant outstanding for him.
2

MadvertsMar. 06, 2012 - 12:28AM JST

Whoops there is a bit missing there Super! Fact remains is that I wouldn't need to have to explain how Iraq could have avoided a secretarian conflict had the US not screamed its way into the conflict. We know why if we're hinest, they had a window of oppertunity, with the national 9/11 paranoia they were feeding and nurturing running out.

I'm on the side that would have prefered to see Iraqi's rise up and squash Saddam himself. Even right to the end the Americans jailed him then tried him and simply dropped him off 10 mins before his hanging. And they even managed to cock that up and let that be done in a pretty barbaric manner by vengeful shiites, which hardly helped matters either.
2

oginomeMar. 06, 2012 - 12:30AM JST

Tell that to all your Kurdish friends.

Actually no, things had improved for them by the time America arrogantly invaded Iraq to 'spread democracy'.
1

bruinfanMar. 06, 2012 - 12:55AM JST

$1,000,000,000,000 and counting, not to mention the thousands of lives of Americans, Brits, etc. So many Iraqi lives ...Halliburton made a lot of money, what else can I say...
-1

hot_dog_dynastyMar. 06, 2012 - 01:57AM JST

Americans trying to yank a silver lining out of the dark cloud is a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. It reminds me very much of the reaction to Vietnam, and declarations of "We did not lose, because it wasn't a real war." Its almost funny how a refusal to let the game end becomes proof of "We have not lost yet!".

A big difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that the anti-war crowd is even weaker because today they refuse to see the soldiers as the enablers. The anti-war crowd actually buys into the idea that the soldiers of this stupid war have honor for going where directed, like they are made of tin and have a wind-up key in the backs, and are beyond accountability. And its weird because none of them can claim to have been drafted. If you are not willing to condemn volunteer soldiers making this mess possible every single day, you may as well just join the pro-war crowd in their belief that Iraq has been a huge success.
2

oginomeMar. 06, 2012 - 02:32AM JST

A big difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that the anti-war crowd is even weaker because today they refuse to see the soldiers as the enablers. The anti-war crowd actually buys into the idea that the soldiers of this stupid war have honor for going where directed, like they are made of tin and have a wind-up key in the backs, and are beyond accountability. And its weird because none of them can claim to have been drafted. If you are not willing to condemn volunteer soldiers making this mess possible every single day, you may as well just join the pro-war crowd in their belief that Iraq has been a huge success.

I agree. 'I was just following orders'. Hmm, where have we heard that before. A sane person is always responsible for their own actions in the end, regardless of what his superiors in the military tell him to do.
0

SuperLibMar. 06, 2012 - 02:50AM JST

Madverts: Even the bloodiest of the Arab Spring uprisings such as Libya aren't suffering from terrorists running amok setting off simaltaneous suicide attacks lefr, right and centre. I've already asked the question what would have happened if Iraq had been left to it's own devices and toppled Saddam themselves last year? More speculation to add to your own I guess.

Well Iraq already had their Arab Spring...a Shiite uprising where Saddam killed upwards to 100,000. I really don't think people get the level he was at. Look at the condemnation now with Syria....so far less than 10,000 dead. Saddam was worse the Mubarak, Ghaddafi, and Assad combined, then doubled. To say that they aren't suffering from terrorists seems a bit silly.... Terrorists in Iraq would have to operate for decades upon decades to reach the number he killed in one uprising.

Even if you are right....even if they had another uprising that didn't kill as many....you'd still have the sectarian angle in play, and no one there to stop it. I don't see how those numbers can be downplayed.
1

MadvertsMar. 06, 2012 - 03:23AM JST

Comparing the '91 uprising to the arab spring isn't honest. Especially as then presidents George H Bush encouraged them to throw their love-spuds on the barbeque, only to stand by and do absolutely nothing when Saddam lit it. The same way the British stabbed the Polish in the back. Everything you claim thereafter is speculation, even if there may be some credibility I'll conceed.

"you'd still have the sectarian angle in play"

That's why I opposed the invasion. It's no good asking me for my solution to the problem after ignoring me when I specifically asked how you would be dealing with the secretarian issue ten years prior!

I know where you stand and respect your opinion and it's concise delivery, but we're never going to see eye to eye on this buddy.