The worst in Iraq is still to come

Guardian

In its external aspects, Iraq remains a live, occasionally explosive issue in the US and Britain, as last week's row over General Sir Richard Dannatt's thoughts on a British withdrawal showed. But the deepening chaos inside the country attracts less and less attention. Like sailors long missing at sea, the fate of ordinary Iraqis three years after the country was driven on to the rocks grows increasingly remote from those who precipitated the disaster.

The Lancet's politically damaging report that more than 650,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 was swiftly dismissed by the White House. But the fact that October is proving the cruellest month for American soldiers, with an average 3.5 deaths a day so far, is deadlier domestic ammunition for the Democrats.

But inside Iraq, the picture appears very different to those who still care to look. As daily sectarian bloodshed, militia anarchy and political incompetence reach unprecedented levels, it seems likely that the worst is yet to come.

In a report for the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Anthony Cordesman takes a more holistic approach reflecting Washington's responsibilities as well as its self-interest.

"Iraq is already in a state of serious civil war and current efforts at political compromise and improving security at best are buying time," he says. "There is a critical risk that Iraq will drift into a major civil conflict over the coming months ... The US cannot simply 'stay the course' and rely on existing actions and strategy. It needs new options."

Well we can all agree (apart from Some, which handle Iraq as a Mission Accomplished), that things in Iraq are getting quickly out of hand and that each and every day there are some Bad news coming from this country.

In fact, the new Lancelot Report, which states that around 655,000 Iraqi civilians already died since the start of the Liberation of Iraq is only a top of the iceberg.

October prooved out to be a deadly month for American soldiers too, with an averege of 3.5 deaths per day. Iraq has already spinned out of control on the spiral of secretarian bloodshed and is circling in the lethal circle of violence, which the already exsisting Bush policy in Iraq can not stop. But maybe that is the general plan of the Bushy administration - everlasting war in Middle East.

Here's an interesting article

Bush acknowledges Iraq-Vietnam war comparison

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush has for the first time acknowledged a possible parallel between the raging violence in Iraq and the Vietnam War.

But the White House also affirmed that it has no plan to reassess its strategy in the war-ravaged country, despite a surge in US casualties there and unrelenting sectarian bloodshed.

Bush was asked in an ABC News interview late Wednesday if he agreed with a New York Times columnist's comparison of the strife in Iraq with the Tet Offensive, which is considered a key turning point in the US war in Vietnam.

"He could be right," Bush said. "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence."

Today in CNN news I will get the link later when available.

It was a sad thing to see obtained videos of insurgent snipers so well trained that they can pin point randomly American troops and shoot them in site with expert aim.

This is video shows a few of the targeted soldiers around Baghdad falling after they became victims.

So far this month is a bloody one for our troops.

Because the mid elections is a very tied control of many of the atrocities going on in Iraq, Baghdad is completely out of control and ruled by chaos.

How can you fix a mess like that.

And to believe that the safety or our troops and the realities of war are been washed down because elections . . . just tells you the disregard that our government including both sides have for our troops and the safety of all the Iraqis Innocent caught in the middle of the mess.

Now is a new Iraqi militia group that have their own flag and are very good as snippers.

Who trained them?

You know what I honestly believe that it wasn't Osama training camp the one than did it, but rather our own military training the Iraqi forces.

The are getting the training and then they turn around and use it for their own benefit and that included to bring US troops casualties.

Originally posted by marg6043
Today in CNN news I will get the link later when available.

It was a sad thing to see obtained videos of insurgent snipers so well trained that they can pin point randomly American troops and shoot them in site with expert aim.

Yeah I seen some of the videos, some of the snipers sucks, others are good. The prefer method is to snipe from cars or vans. I read one story and saw pictures where the Marine countersnipers killed an Iraqi sniper that was hiding in the back seat in a black car with a camera. The driver was also killed. Its their prefer method of getting the hell out after the shot. The Iraqi sniper got cocky.

The are getting the training and then they turn around and use it for their own benefit and that included to bring US troops casualties.

At this rate, this is a good lesson for the U.S. military to learn how to fight this war as well as in the future. How to spot IEDs, enemy snipers, urban combat, etc. Can't avoid this type of war in the future.

Well, Well, Well....

PrisonPlanet

Former British Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, writes today that he suspects the ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq has been intentionally provoked and continued by US and UK special forces in occupation of the country.

"As the catastrophe in Iraq continues to unfold, an unresolved question remains on the role of Bush, Blair, and the US/UK military. To what extent were they passively incompetent in facilitating the decline into civil war, and to what extent were they actively pursuing policies that promoted that outcome?"

Murray suspects that as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy, the same strategy used by British forces in Iraq 85 years ago, Special forces are being used to intentionally foment civil war by training and equipping Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers.

US Congressman Denis Kucinich took up the issue in April of this year in a letter to Donald Rumsfeld requesting all records pertaining to the plan.

Kucinich weighed in on the matter, providing further evidence that the Salvador Option was being implemented, he wrote:

."About one year before the Newsweek report on the "Salvador Option," it was reported in the American Prospect magazine on January 1, 2004 that part of $3 billion of the $87 billion Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill to fund operations in Iraq, signed into law on November 6, 2003, was designated for the creation of a paramilitary unit manned by militiamen associated with former Iraqi exile groups. According to the Prospect article, experts predicted that creation of this paramilitary unit would "lead to a wave of extrajudicial killings, not only of armed rebels but of nationalists, other opponents of the U.S. occupation and thousands of civilian Baathists."

Interesting.

So, it looks like that the Paramilitary formations in Iraq are actually funded, armed and trained by US and UK Military and Intelligence forces - trained to ofcourse kill each other, to continue the vicious circle of violence and to keep Iraq divided and ruled, as planned.

Worse in Iraq is really to come...

what are you all talking about, its all going according to plans, order out of chaos remember

besides, when they cut the country into 3 pieces its going to be much easier to control
jeeesh, just support the ones that give economy into your hands, wipe out the rest....

....depopulation going according to plans

....weapon sales trough the roof

hell its a smashing sucess !!!

Souljah, that is based on what the ambassador thinks and suspects. Hes never heard of counterinsurgency where locals are used to killed the enemy insurgents and their sympathizers. Thats a difference between counterinsurgency and provoking a civil war.

Originally posted by deltaboy
I read one story and saw pictures where the Marine countersnipers killed an Iraqi sniper that was hiding in the back seat in a black car with a camera. The driver was also killed. Its their prefer method of getting the hell out after the shot. The Iraqi sniper got cocky.

I am sorry that I didn't see that, I guess I was so horrified with the soldiers been targeted that I completely miss the snipers been hit.

The only thing I could think was, how many family members will be watching the video without knowing if their love one was one of the target.




[edit on 19-10-2006 by marg6043]

Originally posted by deltaboy
Souljah, that is based on what the ambassador thinks and suspects. Hes never heard of counterinsurgency where locals are used to killed the enemy insurgents and their sympathizers. Thats a difference between counterinsurgency and provoking a civil war.

I already see you did not even bother to click on the link and read the full article, where mister Alex Jones mentiones several other facts, which are related to this same topic, which ambassoadr "suspects". But I guess you already know everything about Iraq needed so - who am I to point out what is left and what is right, right?

Again, wanna know about History, son?

News BBC

With no end to the Iraq conflict in sight, some US military strategists have been considering tactics used during the civil war in El Salvador, a brutal and bloody campaign that lasted for years.

I remember him commenting on how he had been glad to serve in El Salvador because he believed the United States had corrected the mistakes of Vietnam, learning at last the formula to defeat future insurgencies.

This, he said, required pouring in resources to build up the local army as a shield against hostile guerrillas behind which democracy-building could work its magic.

The shield which stopped a guerrilla victory in El Salvador was in reality a reign of terror.

Tens of thousands of those killed in the war were rebel sympathisers, tortured and murdered by the security forces.

It was a well-organised, dirty war in which the CIA was heavily involved.

Horrendously mutilated corpses - sometimes decapitated - were left in full public view.

Using fear, the policy succeeded in denying the rebels open civilian support.

Some in the Pentagon have now been mooting the idea of training Iraqi hit squads to target insurgents and their sympathisers to quash open civilian support for them.

But for this to work would mean out-terrorising the Iraqi rebels, a difficult task indeed.

Nor is success for a Salvador-style death squad democracy guaranteed.

YET AGAIN, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

DEMOCRACY IS SAVED!

HIP-HIP!

HOOOOOOOORAAAAAAAY!

(screw the rest)

As sad as it sounds I see that is not scrupulous when it comes with the private interest vested in Iraq, while our troops died and civilians become targets they are salivating at the table when the time comes to finish their plans.

The partition of Iraq will be the end result in the name of for the Good of the nation and the different groups involve.

I would have agree with it and be glad that could happen, if it wasn't because that was been discussed in the beginning of the Iraqi invasion for the benefit of oil comanies in the region.

That alone tells that is not regards for that country when it comes with the private interest that have their eyes on that nation.

They are not the ones dying and they are not the ones caught in the struggles.

But eventually they will benefit from the death and destruction that they has cause.

Despicable.

Originally posted by Souljah
I already see you did not even bother to click on the link and read the full article, where mister Alex Jones mentiones several other facts, which are related to this same topic, which ambassoadr "suspects". But I guess you already know everything about Iraq needed so - who am I to point out what is left and what is right, right?

How can you see me? You don't. I can read fast enough as it is.

Again, wanna know about History, son?

Since I'm a history major I know much about it, old man.

With no end to the Iraq conflict in sight, some US military strategists have been considering tactics used during the civil war in El Salvador, a brutal and bloody campaign that lasted for years.

Pretty interesting, during the civil war. Not before the civil war.

I remember him commenting on how he had been glad to serve in El Salvador because he believed the United States had corrected the mistakes of Vietnam, learning at last the formula to defeat future insurgencies.

This, he said, required pouring in resources to build up the local army as a shield against hostile guerrillas behind which democracy-building could work its magic.

The shield which stopped a guerrilla victory in El Salvador was in reality a reign of terror.

Tens of thousands of those killed in the war were rebel sympathisers, tortured and murdered by the security forces.

It was a well-organised, dirty war in which the CIA was heavily involved.

Horrendously mutilated corpses - sometimes decapitated - were left in full public view.

Using fear, the policy succeeded in denying the rebels open civilian support.

Some in the Pentagon have now been mooting the idea of training Iraqi hit squads to target insurgents and their sympathisers to quash open civilian support for them.

But for this to work would mean out-terrorising the Iraqi rebels, a difficult task indeed.

Originally posted by deltaboy
How can you see me? You don't. I can read fast enough as it is.

I can see by your answers.

Since I'm a history major I know much about it, old man.

So? I bet they will teach you all True History you want...

Pretty interesting, during the civil war. Not before the civil war.

Your Point?

I guess you kind of missed the following facts:

The shield which stopped a guerrilla victory in El Salvador was in reality a reign of terror.

Tens of thousands of those killed in the war were rebel sympathisers, tortured and murdered by the security forces.

It was a well-organised, dirty war in which the CIA was heavily involved.

Horrendously mutilated corpses - sometimes decapitated - were left in full public view.

Well for starters anyone that uses Alex Jones as a source has already discredited their post.

And for seconds, the Lancelot Report has been debunked. The actual casualty figure is around 40,000 (Not a government figure - but a RELIABLE independant figure). I'm not saying that is good at all... but its hardly 655,000...

Originally posted by Souljah
I can see by your answers.

Then its based on your assumption.

So? I bet they will teach you all True History you want...

Okay, so you pretty much believe that our professors are brainwashing us now.

Your Point?

Okay, theres a civil war going on. Before the U.S. got involved, and they wanted to put down this insurgency using counterinsurgency methods. A civil war going on...HELLOOOOO. The U.S. strategy was not about provoking a civil war, its about ending the insurgency.

I guess you kind of missed the following facts:

The shield which stopped a guerrilla victory in El Salvador was in reality a reign of terror.

Tens of thousands of those killed in the war were rebel sympathisers, tortured and murdered by the security forces.

It was a well-organised, dirty war in which the CIA was heavily involved.

Horrendously mutilated corpses - sometimes decapitated - were left in full public view.

O yeah, the facts that its a dirty war. Yep I seen wars that involves a lot of decapitating, and it don't always involve civil wars. But it does involve a lot of insurgencies and counterinsurgencies where both sides play dirty. I seen one video where some Chechen rebel beheaded a Russian soldier and cut him and skinned him like a cow.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by deltaboy]

[edit on 19-10-2006 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Well for starters anyone that uses Alex Jones as a source has already discredited their post.

yes, but only in your eyes...

And for seconds, the Lancelot Report has been debunked. The actual casualty figure is around 40,000 (Not a government figure - but a RELIABLE independant figure). I'm not saying that is good at all... but its hardly 655,000...

no its probably twice as much (as it usually is), and dont use the word debunk if you dont use it properly, debunking means you cant accept it for what it is and you hold on to your story no matter what, meaning you cant accept 655,000 number so you just dismiss it as bull.

Funny how the mind works isnt it...


Deltaboy if you are history major that makes me Roger Ramjet

actually let me take that back....i know a lot of computer engineers that cant install windows



[edit on 19-10-2006 by born_to_be_wired]

Originally posted by deltaboy
Then its based on your assumption.

I think profanity is against the Rules of the Board!

Okay, so you pretty much believe that our professors are brainwashing us now.

Ofcourse they are - if History is a Lie we all agree upon and if history is written by the Winners, then you are a Major in LIES THAT THE WINNERS WRITE and not history...

Okay, theres a civil war going on. Before the U.S. got involved, and they wanted to put down this insurgency using counterinsurgency methods. A civil war going on...HELLOOOOO. The U.S. strategy was not about provoking a civil war, its about ending the insurgency.

And how would you know what the strategy of the warmongers is?

Are you also in US goverment?

To tell the truth, I turst mister Alex Jones before ANY goverment of this planet.

O yeah, the facts that its a dirty war. Yep I seen wars that involves a lot of decapitating, and it don't always involve civil wars. But it does involve a lot of insurgencies and counterinsurgencies where both sides play dirty. I seen one video where some Chechen rebel beheaded a Russian soldier and cut him and skinned him like a cow.

Well I have seen a video how Russian soldiers used 4 tanks and quartered a man (probably a so-called Rebel). So what does that tell you mister HistoryMajor?

Iraq has to be the biggest failure in our history. I honestly hope we pullout soon so we can focus on Afghanistan where its actually winnable. If the Iraqis ever decide to live in a country where they don't murder the man and his family down the street because of his religion they should let us know.

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Well for starters anyone that uses Alex Jones as a source has already discredited their post.

Oh, you don't like facts.

You like baloney.

I understand. Bad indigestion.

I am also one of those people who believe that there will be a division of Iraq into three states, one controlled by the Kurds, one by the Shiites, and one by the Sunis.

Personally, I'd prefer if the US troops backed off a little more and let the Sunis and the Shiites kill each other for a few months. Then perhaps a political solution would seem a little better to their leaders.

I also believe that the US is not winning because they simply don't want to do enough damage to people and property that they can beat the opposition into submission. You don't win a war by being politically correct, you win it by smashing the opposion and breaking all their toys.



[edit: Actual secular designation] Shiites
Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/19/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by pugachev
Iraq has to be the biggest failure in our history. I honestly hope we pullout soon so we can focus on Afghanistan where its actually winnable. If the Iraqis ever decide to live in a country where they don't murder the man and his family down the street because of his religion they should let us know.

oh so you think afganistan is winnable? watched any news lately?

did you ask the Russians what they think about it?