130 dead in Baghdad market bomb

[Bernie Gunther]

If the US pulled out and left the Iraqis to stabilise their country as best they could, then the most likely result would be a state unfriendly to the US that would most naturally align with Iran. The US is not going to let that happen even if all the Iraqis who haven't already been killed have to die in the process.

 

[moono]

denniseagle;

I don't know.......... have they??

If not, why should they engage in civil war now?

Here's why, dennis-

Iraq poised to hand control of oil fields to foreign firms

Baghdad is under pressure from Britain and the US to pass an oil law which would hand long-term control of Iraq's energy assets to foreign multinationals, according to campaigners.

Iraqi trades unions have called for the country's oil reserves - the second-largest in the world - to be kept in public hands. But a leaked draft of the oil law, seen by The Observer, would see the government sign away the right to exploit its untapped fields in so-called exploration contracts, which could then be extended for more than 30 years

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,2020560,00.html

A major concern for Iraqi nationalists, I'm sure you'll agree.

The same thing is ongoing in Lebanon, where the puppet government is so 'western friendly' that it wants to hand control of the country's utilities to 'foreign investors', thereby condemning Lebanon to eternal indebtedness.

Once the Iraqi puppet government has signed away the oil it's a fait accompli. That's the hope of Bush anyway. I'd say that the resistance would make oil extraction almost impossible and certainly uneconomical.

 

[denniseagle]

So do sunni and shiiia co-exist elswhere??

How does killing school girls aid the 'resistance'??

How does killing any Iraqi sunni or shiia aid the 'resistance'??

How was al Zarquari (sp)(the guy responsible for sawing off Ken Bigleys head on video) an Iraqi nationalist?
He was a Jordanian.


What is the problem with being 'western friendly'?

Dunno whether you have noticed but quite a few of the UK's utilities are owned by 'foreign investors'.

 

[Julie]

'The White House in Washington called it another atrocity aimed at innocent people.'

Something with which they are intimately familiar. The hypocritical bastards

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Don't know but I suspect us the US not being there may help...

Yes; as soon as the americans leave, the sunnis and shiites will all sit down to a nice cup of tea.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, given that the US has spent the last few years largely backing their Shia puppet government in Iraq and fighting against Sunni insurgents, and is now according to Seymour Hersh's sources, starting to back Sunni (including Al Qaeda linked crazies) against Shia, e.g. Hezbollah, it's not difficult to see how they might be considered to be making things worse between the two groups. To say nothing of removing one of the most prominent secular governments in the middle east in the process.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm reminded of the story in 'Apocalypse Now', when the narrator tells of the American army inoculating all the children of a Vietnamese village, only to return later to find a pile of little inoculated arms.

Some people simply will not stand for American occupation of their country. That doesn't mean anything other than that they will not stand for it.
]

You missed the point of that story. Col Kurtz was talking about the singularity of purpose that the vietcong displayed. They would do anything to win, but the americans wouldn't. And that, according to Kurtz, was why the Americans would lose in vietnam.

Do you really want the americans to display that singularity of purpose?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It is why I always said and why I shall continue to say that countries like Iraq (and you can add the whole region to this) *need* a form of dictatorship to keep it together and under control.
Nevertheless, although differences can always occur between ethnicies, tribes and religious sects, there was no *hatred* at all.
You could ask yourself what would happen in any country if it came in a situation like the USA created in Iraq.

salaam.

'Iraq' was created by the French and British. There is nothing homogeneous about the peoples included within those borders, that would make it hang together as a country. It should be partitioned.

 

[moono]

JC;

You missed the point of that story. Col Kurtz was talking about the singularity of purpose that the vietcong displayed. They would do anything to win, but the americans wouldn't. And that, according to Kurtz, was why the Americans would lose in vietnam.

Do you really want the americans to display that singularity of purpose?

You have a very weird head. It is the singularity of purpose of the Iraqi resistance which caused me to recall the story. How come you didn't see that ?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

JC;


You have a very weird head. It is the singularity of purpose of the Iraqi resistance which caused me to recall the story. How come you didn't see that ?

To repeat, the second half of Kurtz' soliloquy is that if the American could only be as focused as the vietcong, then the americans could prevail.

Again: do you want the Americans to become that focused in Iraq? They do have the power to prevail there, should they choose to use it. But who would benefit from the scorched earth?

 

[Yossarian]

They do have the power to prevail there, should they choose to use it.

George Bush, on the objectives in Iraq: "Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country.”

Does the US really have the power to realise these goals and thereby prevail? They’ve certainly got the power to kill a lot of Iraqis, as has been amply demonstrated over the last four years, but it doesn’t seem to be bringing Iraq any closer to being a stable democracy.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

George Bush, on the objectives in Iraq: "Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country.”

Does the US really have the power to realise these goals and thereby prevail? They’ve certainly got the power to kill a lot of Iraqis, as has been amply demonstrated over the last four years, but it doesn’t seem to be bringing Iraq any closer to being a stable democracy.

I don't know if they can achieve those things. The limited discussion here was about the ability to prevail over an enemy. The viet cong and the iraqi insurgents go about trying to achieve that goal in a certain way. The americans could impose quiet in Iraq.

 

[Yossarian]

I don’t think they do – they haven’t even been able to quiet Fallujah, and that’s certainly not from lack of trying or from being overly restrained. Most of their efforts to defeat the insurgency just seem to make the insurgency stronger and better-supported.

Is ‘tar baby’ still considered an acceptable expression to use?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don’t think they do – they haven’t even been able to quiet Fallujah, and that’s certainly not from lack of trying or from being overly restrained. Most of their efforts to defeat the insurgency just seem to make the insurgency stronger and better-supported.

Is ‘tar baby’ still considered an acceptable expression to use?

They could kill everyone in Fallujah.

 

[Yossarian]

Would American troops carry out orders to exterminate every Fallujan?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Would American troops carry out orders to exterminate every Fallujan?

Maybe not. Which gets back to the whole 'singularity of purpose' argument.

How do you fight people who will slice off inoculated arms, or saw off the heads of people snatched at random from the street.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Addendum: the world should be happy that there's doubt that american troops would blindly follow orders to commit mass slaughter.

 

[Dandred]

How do you fight people who will slice off inoculated arms, or saw off the heads of people snatched at random from the street.

How, do you fight people who drop lazer guided bombs from 20,000 feet, and use missiles piloted by someone miles away. Especially when these bombs and missiles are killing you Country's men women and children. ?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How, do you fight people who drop lazer guided bombs from 20,000 feet, and use missiles piloted by someone miles away. Especially when these bombs and missiles are killing you Country's men women and children. ?

You come in the night, snatch people and behead them. You load vans full of explosives and detonate them in public marketplaces.

 

[Yossarian]

That's how the Sunni and the Shia are fighting each other - they're fighting the Americans with roadside bombs.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That's how the Sunni and the Shia are fighting each other - they're fighting the Americans with roadside bombs.

http://www.pakistantimes.net/2004/09/01/top1.htm

 

[moono]

JC;

To repeat, the second half of Kurtz' soliloquy is that if the American could only be as focused as the vietcong, then the americans could prevail.

You just don't listen , do you. Yes, I know that and American defeat is implicit in my recalling the 'story' in the first place. Americans are never going to display that singularity of purpose. American society, and its citizens, are too soft to make good invaders. ( Hence Kurtz's realisation that it was necessary to nuke the enemy in order to, er........win )

Now, if America was suffering as Iraq is suffering then it might be different. Defending one's homeland adds a certain 'justification' to anything you do. However, even little piles of baby's arms all along Broadway would be unlikely to soften the resolve of , say, invading Chinese.

America is an air power, good at 'distance killing', fucked at sustained close quarters.

Good film, wasn't it.

 

[nino_savatte]

You come in the night, snatch people and behead them. You load vans full of explosives and detonate them in public marketplaces.

Ah, if all else fails, try an emotional line. Nice narrative.

 

[nino_savatte]

It's true: the Shiite and Kurdish areas would have all the oil. Maybe that's why the Sunnis wanted to take over the place in the first instance.

You know nothing of Iraq's history and this post rather proves it.

 

[Dandred]

How, do you fight people who drop lazer guided bombs from 20,000 feet, and use missiles piloted by someone miles away. Especially when these bombs and missiles are killing you Country's men women and children. ?

You come in the night, snatch people and behead them. You load vans full of explosives and detonate them in public marketplaces.

So, if that's your answer to my question to you, why are you so bothered about what happened in Fallujah to the merc's? You seem to be saying they deserved it...

 

[Barking_Mad]

For anyone who has satellite there's a programme on Discovery Civilisation tonight (5th March 9pm) called 'Age of Terror' looking into whether national liberation movements are ever justified by the violence. No idea what it's like....

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

JC;


You just don't listen , do you. Yes, I know that and American defeat is implicit in my recalling the 'story' in the first place. Americans are never going to display that singularity of purpose. American society, and its citizens, are too soft to make good invaders. ( Hence Kurtz's realisation that it was necessary to nuke the enemy in order to, er........win )

Now, if America was suffering as Iraq is suffering then it might be different. Defending one's homeland adds a certain 'justification' to anything you do. However, even little piles of baby's arms all along Broadway would be unlikely to soften the resolve of , say, invading Chinese. .

You set up a premise in the first paragraph, then shoot it down yourself in the second.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

America is an air power, good at 'distance killing', fucked at sustained close quarters.

.

I didn't realize that Omaha Beach, the Ardennes Forest, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc, were won through the use of air power.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You know nothing of Iraq's history and this post rather proves it.

Prove what I said to be wrong.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How, do you fight people who drop lazer guided bombs from 20,000 feet, and use missiles piloted by someone miles away. Especially when these bombs and missiles are killing you Country's men women and children. ?




So, if that's your answer to my question to you, why are you so bothered about what happened in Fallujah to the merc's? You seem to be saying they deserved it...

I'm not saying that it's right, I'm saying that that's what happens.

The retaliation for those acts, also happens.