147 killed in Baghdad suicide car bombings

Monday 26th October, 06:45 AM JST

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

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 45 Total Comments Show All

smithinjapan at 03:53 PM JST - 26th October

sailwind: Obama doesn't really believe things are improving with this attack, my friend, he's simply rehashing the same old lines, so what's your point? You attack Obama for this and that, but if Obama looked at the stark reality of the situation and pointed out that things really AREN'T improving, you'd criticize him for that, too. What else is the guy going to say that won't lose him the support of both Iraqis and people at home? Put me on the record as saying he's wrong on this -- I don't care. Should I put you on the record for saying he's right? Can you bear that?

"Also Smith, President Obama doesn't seem real keen on a putting another jackbooted dictator in charge of Iraq to stop the murderious bastards that would turn the place back into the dark ages either if they could."

Doesn't matter if he's keen on it or not. History has shown over and over again that overthrowing regimes (particular the US/CIA) leads to dictators, often worse, taking control. I don't WANT it to happen in Iraq, and I would love it if I am proven wrong, but I just don't think things are getting better in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and I will not at all be surprised when another dictator wrests control of either or both, and yet another few dark pages are written in US history.
sailwind at 04:15 PM JST - 26th October

Should I put you on the record for saying he's right? Can you bear that?

Of course I can put me record all day long. He is right on this and if he really doesn't believe things aren't improving he would have pulled out along time ago. You can't seriously be implying that he is letting his American troops die in a cause that he already knows is lost because he is only concerned about his political position???

Enlighten please?
SushiSake3 at 05:16 PM JST - 26th October

What has enlightened me is how along near partisan lines, the GOP is pushing for Obama to increase troop numbers in Afghanistan - ie: to send more young men and women to their deaths for a pointless cause that will only further bankrupt America and create more enemies.

The meaning of "cut your losses" seems to be completely lost on the GOP.
tanglewood at 05:37 PM JST - 26th October

Iraqis are blaming Syria and Iran.
SuperLib at 05:41 PM JST - 26th October

SmithinJapan: You're simply ignoring the facts in this case. Without said draconian lockdown, these attacks are clearly not going to stop.

No, that's exactly my point. You can't have it both ways. You either take the dictator or you take the threat of terrorism. Looking at a car bomb and saying liberation was a mistake is shortsighted since it ignores the pain and suffering of the alternative. These attacks aren't going to stop in Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or Turkey, Egypt, Spain, England, Saudi Arabia, Canada, the US, etc. Do you want to be free from terrorism? Then move to North Korea.
SuperLib at 06:06 PM JST - 26th October

SushiSake3: What has enlightened me is how along near partisan lines, the GOP is pushing for Obama to increase troop numbers in Afghanistan - ie: to send more young men and women to their deaths for a pointless cause that will only further bankrupt America and create more enemies. The meaning of "cut your losses" seems to be completely lost on the GOP.

This is Sushi's position:

Obama has increased troop numbers in Afghanistan - ie: sent more young men and women to their deaths for a pointless cause that will only further bankrupt America and create more enemies.

Or.....am I wrong, Sushi? ;)
smithinjapan at 07:46 PM JST - 26th October

SuperLib: "You either take the dictator or you take the threat of terrorism."

You treat this like it were a simple, two-way street, when of course it's a wee bit (sarcasm) more complicated. And there's no 'threat of terrorism' here, in case you didn't read the article. There is out and out terrorism, from all sides.

"Looking at a car bomb and saying liberation was a mistake is shortsighted since it ignores the pain and suffering of the alternative."

I'm sorry... did you say A carbomb, as though you believe this to be a small, one-time burp in the road to peace? Dude, in this incident alone there were two bombs that went off, and a few days ago, and a few days before that, and a few days before that. So you now have TERRORISM (not the threat, the fact).

"Do you want to be free from terrorism? Then move to North Korea."

Possibly the dumbest, most simplistic statement of the day, particularly when your ilk call NKorea a terrorist threat every day. No, my friend, you want to be free of terrorism, you don't reduce yourself to roughly the same tactics to 'bring it on'. Violence begets violence. Not all of this was brought on because the US illegally invaded a sovereign nation and overthrew a dictator; it was brought on and is GAINING SUPPORT because they simply illegally invaded a sovereign nation and brought war, with the moronic president at the time actually saying that war will bring about peace! Think a little bit, SuperLib. There are alternatives to making war, although in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan it's far too late.
smithinjapan at 07:51 PM JST - 26th October

sailwind: "He is right on this and if he really doesn't believe things aren't improving he would have pulled out along time ago."

He announced he would withdraw the troops ASAP, my friend, for which he was indeed forced to backtrack once president for, wait for it, POLITICS!

"You can't seriously be implying that he is letting his American troops die in a cause that he already knows is lost because he is only concerned about his political position???"

He's not 'letting troops die', he's trying to get them out of there so they might not. Thanks to the GOP and their fear-mongering, and tag-teaming with the generals on the ground (and you STILL have Dead-eye dick and McCain saying more troops are needed elsewhere and what not!!), he's had to backtrack, as I said. I'd bet he's more concerned about the lives of American service-men and women, but the GOP and Republicans clearly are not, and want to keep them there, dying for no reason, even longer. Unfortunately, that affects things on Capital Hill. I don't like it any more than you do, and would love for them to be out tomorrow, unlike you... who it seems would rather have them there longer, with higher death tolls.
kinniku at 07:59 PM JST - 26th October

They could always send in someone for a delivery and then remotely blow the whole thing up when the guy reaches destination.

Yeah, or it could have been aliens, or the cookie monster, or a really funny practical joke gone bad. It is interesting that you seem to lack the ability to see anything as it really is. Suicide bombings are not exactly unique. Welcome to reality.
sailwind at 09:48 PM JST - 26th October

Smith

He's not 'letting troops die', he's trying to get them out of there so they might not.

He sucks at that.

Oct. 3, 2009: Eight U.S. soldiers are killed when their outpost in Kamdesh, Nuristan, is attacked by as many as 300 militants.
SuperLib at 11:28 PM JST - 26th October

Sorry smith but it seems for every one sentence I write you respond with 3-5 rambling sentences that either make no sense from the start or end up in a completely different area than where they began. Just throw a few more catchphrases at me and we'll call it a day.
BobbieWickham at 05:58 AM JST - 27th October

At least 721 people were wounded, including three American contractors.

What are the ordinary Iraqui people's thoughts on all this? After all we're supposed to learn from our mistakes ... And we have to ask the question 'Where's the money?' Who is profiteering from American involvement in Iraq etc? To be fair I'd say Obama's hands are pretty much tied in all this. Not a lot he can really do if he doesn't want to pay the price that JFK payed.

On the streets of Baghdad, many Iraqis were angry at what they described as a lapse in security and wary about what will happen when U.S. forces leave.

It's going to be hell on earth with another possible Cambodia on our hands. But never mind, Saddam is dead and long live 'Democracy'.
kinniku at 06:24 AM JST - 27th October

To be fair I'd say Obama's hands are pretty much tied in all this. Not a lot he can really do if he doesn't want to pay the price that JFK payed.

Umm...Kennedy supported the Vietnam war. I realize you are attempting to hint at a conspiracy theory. However, it fails when compared with reality.

The question is would these people be better off if Saddam were still around.

Compared to the way things ended up now? Any intelligent person would have to say 'no'.

And for what? Democracy doesn't seem to be very strong in Vietnam these days.

Probably because the US did not win that war. Equally, the US has not completely won the war in Iraq either. That is why people are still getting killed.
yabits at 08:25 AM JST - 27th October

What are the ordinary Iraqi people's thoughts on all this?

Jane Arraf, a correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor in Bagdad, has done a lot of on-the-scene interviews and, interestingly, here is what her reporting has revealed about who the people in Bagdad are blaming for the bombings:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1025/p06s01-wome.html
Delarapier at 12:26 PM JST - 28th October

Someone explained the whole Iraqi situation as a Parabola,as the number of US troops and the amount of militias "bribed" into supporting the government stays steady;things work out.

When the number of US troops decrease and the locals can't find jobs doing security for the government then violence starts to increase again.

It is not about winning or losing;it is just the math.If the US wants "victory",it is going to have to occupy Iraq(with a lot of soldier) and spend money making sure every Iraqi with a gun has something going for him.

Best thing to do at this point is dissolve Iraq and let Kurdistan and the Sunnis go their separate ways.Only thing worthwhile that can be done.