It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UN Declares Civil War in Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
President Bush is living a denial.

Iraq is going through a fierce and bloody civil war.

American forces are in the middle of a sectrarian civil war.

I dont think US should be in there any longer.

over 3000 people are being massacred every month.

according to the United Nations, its total chaos down there.




Annan says Iraq in grip of civil war

Sunday December 3, 2006

(Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Iraq was in the grip of a civil war as U.S. and Iraqi forces attacked insurgent bases in a bid to shore up the authority of a government itself riven by factional rivalries.

President George W. Bush has repeatedly rejected recent assertions in the mainstream media that Iraq is now embroiled in a civil war. Annan's remarks, to the BBC, might add to pressure for a swift change of policy.

"When we had the strife in Lebanon and other places, we called that a civil war -- this is much worse," Annan said.

He agreed with Iraqis who said life was worse now than it was under deposed president Saddam Hussein.

"If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison -- that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, 'Am I going to see my child again?" Annan said.

news.yahoo.com...




[edit on 3-12-2006 by mr conspiracy]




posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Well is about time, the civil war in that country started a long time ago. Perhaps now our troops will not be blamed anymore on the death of civilian casualties now we can blame it solely on the civil unrest.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well is about time, the civil war in that country started a long time ago. Perhaps now our troops will not be blamed anymore on the death of civilian casualties now we can blame it sorely on the civil unrest.


all true and then we can blame that soley on the hands of the american population for allowing this to happend, i mean by the US invading a country under faulse pertencies they have completly distablized the country.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
BS, Marg.
There's still the little matter of who it was that removed the only form of control that Iraq had. Now we can see how vitally important Saddam was to the area. Without his ironfisted control, it didn't take long for things to destablize. The US made a mistake in taking out Saddam and that mistake has resulted in this civil war.

So yes, the US is responcible for it's actions and the death that those actions have brought.

Once again I'll state that I do NOT support this sham "War on Terror". I did not support the invasion of Iraq. However, I believe it would be totally iresponcible to pull out now. US involvment has led to a horrible situation. It would be a crime against humanity to leave those people to suffer in destablized Iraq.

A reality check: Most people in Iraq are NOT insurgents, NOT extreamists, NOT "Terrorists". The majority of people are just normal people trying to live their lives while a minority of fanatical agressives tear things apart around them. Those normal people are what "Opperation Iraqi Freedom" was supposed to save. Instead, they've been dropped into a living hell.

The US had Damned well better stay in Iraq until the mess they cause is cleaned up. There's going to be a lot of blood until then, but TOUGH! That's what you get for pulling this kind of crap.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser


A reality check: Most people in Iraq are NOT insurgents, NOT extreamists, NOT "Terrorists". The majority of people are just normal people trying to live their lives while a minority of fanatical agressives tear things apart around them. Those normal people are what "Opperation Iraqi Freedom" was supposed to save. Instead, they've been dropped into a living hell.


Actually that may have been true in the past but the reality now has changed. Most of the "normal" people in Iraq have fled the country while at the same time, insurgents have moved in. So NOW most of the people in Iraq are in fact insurgents, or just too poor to leave.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Well brodul, the key here is to save face, blaming the death to the civil unrest will make the death because of war a problem within the population in Iraq that got liberated. When all this be over Bush will be long gone and somebody else will carry the blame.

BitRaiser, right now the truth is that Saddam knew his people and he knew what it took to control them and for the way things look in that country right now only brutal force keep them from killing each other.

Right now, more civilians have died in that country than in the years that saddam ruled that country.

Nevertheless, you cannot tell that to the supporters of war because that will be an outrage lied.

However, history will tell.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Tech, do you have some figures to back up that statement?

As far as I know, only the very rich have been able to buy their way out of Iraq. Those are not the people I would consider "normal". Althought Iraq had a healthy middle class, the poor common people still made up the majority of people in Iraq (a state of affairs that is little different from here in the West).

Haven't the boarders to naboring states been closed since well before the start of the conflict? How did the majority of common people manage to flee? Where did they go?

It's a common misconception to believe that everyone living in Iraq is either a Terrorist or and Insurgent. That's a dangerous bit of ignorance that could (has?) lead to unjust human suffering.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Sure. Theres many links, you should really do a search yourself and try to disprove me before you ask for a link though.

Iraqi refugees.


The UN estimates that 2.3 million Iraqis have fled violence in their country; 1.8 million have fled to surrounding countries, mainly Jordan and Syria, while some 500,000 have vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq. An estimated 40,000 people are leaving Iraq every month for Syria alone, while other countries through out the Middle East, including Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran and Turkey are also seeing increased flows. Most Iraqis are determined to be resettled to Europe or North America, and few consider return to Iraq an option. With no legal work options in their current host countries, Iraqis are already exploring the use of false documents to migrate to Western nations.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Well, usually when you make a statement, you try to provide information to back it up. Leaving it for others to research leaves it open to dispute. After I asked you for links, I did go out looking for some myself.



Overall, the United Nations estimates 1.5 million Iraqis have been displaced within Iraq, fleeing their homes as sectarian strife creeps into previously ethnically mixed areas.

"The concern is that with the increasing instability in Iraq, the number of those fleeing will rise," said Breen. "If they have any money, the right documents, or any other way, they are moving. The worse it gets, the more people will leave."

Source



According to UNHCR, the UN's Refugee Agency, Palestinian refugees in Iraq, Syria and Jordan are facing extreme conditions. Agency Spokesperson Jennifer Pagonis says the refugees have been subject to harassment, threats, kidnapping and murder.

Source

Yes, people are fleeing, but they are hardly managing to escape the hardships that this strife has inflicted upon them.

I still have trouble believing that the majority of the people left in Iraq are extreamists. Infact, it makes sence to me that a large number of those refugees would be former supporters of Saddam who are fleeing before the winds of vengence and members of the upper/middle class who have liquid assets that they can take with them.

It's something worth more looking into...



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
These people should never of been made to leave their home in the begining.
Saddam was bad, but he controlled these mad people.

I agree bitraiser...
The US should never of been there... NEVER!
But they have gone in, turned it into the mess it is today... and there is no choice but for them to stay.
Freedom is the LAST Thing the USA has provided IRAQ.

Most people believe the US should stay, simply for what bush says
'' we will get the job done and leave ''

The goals in the begining are non existant now, the initiative is simply to not LOSE any more, leaving = losing.

Winning is out of the question, simply not being thumped is priority now.

Sad, so many american women and childeren are spilling their blood for this corproate adventure...
So many Iraqi's have spilt their blood over the lies of the USA.

And now your in the position where you HAVE to suffer even more losses... with no clue about when its going end.
If thats not demoralising, i dont know what is.

Civil war ? I think bush wil be in denial for another 2yrs.
Its like the people fleeing...
THE USA cannot declare them refugee's, becaue they then get stuck with a mighty bill.

Can I ask as of late where all the PRO bush people have been?
2yrs ago,a number of posts would of brought about a specific number of
''shut your anti bush crap'' type people...

have they decided to hide under their rock rather than to admit they were wrong?



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Can I ask as of late where all the PRO bush people have been?
2yrs ago,a number of posts would of brought about a specific number of
''shut your anti bush crap'' type people...

have they decided to hide under their rock rather than to admit they were wrong?


Perhaps…there could be any number of reasons….

Kofi’s definition of “civil war” is, of course, not presented other than pointing to “other conflicts”.

If a paraphrased conventional definition of civil war is taken such as: A violent militant conflict between organized groups within the same country or national state that are fighting over control of the government and government policy.

Well…then Iraq has been in “civil war” since the installation of the fledgling interim government in 2004.

So what’s the point? Stating “civil war” by Kofi is only a political slant. My 98 year old great grandmother knows (without being told so) Iraq is and has been in some form of a “civil war” (even if mingled with an interstate war and/or the victim in exo-wars of proxy etc.); but is Iraq engaged in open civil war “officially”…well, certainly not because Kofi says it is. His comments and declaration, of sorts, are politically motivated….nothing more.

….or it could equally be that supporters and/or non-supporters of Bush can equally recognize the source of the printed judgment: Kofi Annan...for what he has been historically and is today.

Did ‘ol Kofi give these vivid comments when describing the 800K+ men, women and children slaughtered in Rwanda under his full watch when giving orders to Maj-General Dallaire “to defend only the UN's image of impartiality”? No. Did the ever benevolent Kofi present his concern for the families over the “UN Safe Houses” he abandoned and left 20K+ to die in Bosnia? No. What of the Sudan’s 225K+ and dying daily?…well at least a few words (very few words) but one that is absent is still “genocide”? I’ll stop here, (without touching on other areas of Kofi’s miserable failures), but sadly I could go on….

Imho, if there is one person on the planet Earth that may have no place to criticize Bush, that person may well be Kofi Annan.

mg



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Kofi isnt a golden child..
But its wrong for people to criticise him.

I persoanlly dont think kofi is a curropt official.
He isnt the greedy type.

He has spent his entire life in the UN, from 1967 I think.

You dont work in that organistion for almost 40yrs just so you can rip the joint off in possibly the last appointment of your life.

And how exactly do you solve the worlds conflicts? from the seat in your office.

I think Kofi's the IDEAL person to be criticising bush on everything.

The UN said iraq had no wmd's... and they wanted more time.
The US in a direct action,went against the organistion they setup to bring peace on earth after ww2.

I think kofi, personally needs to grow some balls.

and outright accuse the USA of what most people already know.

That america LIED to get into Iraq.
They maniuplated media to presnet their TAKE on the sitaution,
and they deliberatley used the trust and faith the world put in america to their own advantage.



America cannot even admit to the civil war.

America wont label the iraqi's refugees, simply for the costs involved in that status.

I am very saddend that kofi is stepping down,

He is an amazing individual, who did everything he could for humanity.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Kofi Annan is going around saying the situation is even worse than "civil war". I think he should mind his business and at least be content that the US media is conceding to calling it a civil war. Kofi Annan is taking a definite anti-US stance on this one. Let's hope he does not start teaming up with the Iranians too.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prokurator
Kofi Annan is going around saying the situation is even worse than "civil war". I think he should mind his business and at least be content that the US media is conceding to calling it a civil war. Kofi Annan is taking a definite anti-US stance on this one. Let's hope he does not start teaming up with the Iranians too.


That has to be the most immature stance on this subject.


Kofi should mind his business?

The USA in direct violation of the UNITED NATIONS, INVADED AND OCCUPIED A FORIENG COUNTRY BASED ON FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE.
THE UNITED NATIONS SAID NO WEAPONS EXISTED, and MORE TIME WAS NEEDED TO SUBSTANTIATE ACCUSATIONS.

This all turned out to be correct.

The UNITED STATES Then went on to riddicule the United nations.

Kofi annan has every right to say what he pleases about countries..
Hes the secretary of the UNITED NATIONS ffs.

HAD he of agreed with the USA, you'd all be praising this man.

This is worse than civil war...

because a civil war people are fighting for a reason.. theres something both sides want, and usually after talks people can come to an agreement.

IN THIS CASE..

There's a civil war, being fueled by an illegial occupation... while also being maniuplated by VARIOUS foreign countries.

This is much worse than civil war, because it is going to affect the entire planet unless it is worked out.

And working it out as it is now, is nearly impossible.

This has nothing to do with being ANtI AMERICAN.

Kofi is simply saying what george bush cannot say due to financial reasons.

As for Iran?

If the USA starts beating the drums of war against Iran, I would EXPECT kofi and the UN to stand up and demand talks, negotiations and everything under the sun.

I am just amazed at the total lack of BRAINS some people presnet on this site, on subjects they dont understand will change the fabric of humanity.

Cant you see America going AGAINST the UN's position has put this entire region into a major conflict?
Innocent people are DYING NEEDLESSLY... and your still willing to call anyone who suggests this ANTI AMERICAN?



[edit on 4-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 4-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
It doesn't matter what you call it. Civil War or not, the name of what's happening doesn't change the events. Muslims are killing Muslims, Americans are killing Muslims, and Muslims are killing Americans. And such.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
It doesn't matter what you call it. Civil War or not, the name of what's happening doesn't change the events. Muslims are killing Muslims, Americans are killing Muslims, and Muslims are killing Americans. And such.


I agree--

What amazes me, tho, is why it is that the UN --not to mention the US--is always the last to accept the truth of that? Oh, yea! This one has a lot of Reverb---Bosnia and 'Nam--not to mention Darfur.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prokurator
Kofi Annan is going around saying the situation is even worse than "civil war". I think he should mind his business and at least be content that the US media is conceding to calling it a civil war. Kofi Annan is taking a definite anti-US stance on this one. Let's hope he does not start teaming up with the Iranians too.


It IS Kofi's business - he's the head of the UN for god's sake!

He's saying what your media and Govt don't want you to hear; it's all been a massive mistake - there IS civil war and it IS demonstrably worse now for the Iraqis than when Saddam was in charge.

If Kofi is taking an anti-US stance then (QED) the US is anti-truth!

Point to all: please remember there are other nations' sons dying out there too - it's not just the US paying the blood price for this foolish illegal crusade



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
BS, Marg.
There's still the little matter of who it was that removed the only form of control that Iraq had. Now we can see how vitally important Saddam was to the area. Without his ironfisted control, it didn't take long for things to destablize. The US made a mistake in taking out Saddam and that mistake has resulted in this civil war.

So yes, the US is responcible for it's actions and the death that those actions have brought.

Once again I'll state that I do NOT support this sham "War on Terror". I did not support the invasion of Iraq. However, I believe it would be totally iresponcible to pull out now. US involvment has led to a horrible situation. It would be a crime against humanity to leave those people to suffer in destablized Iraq.

A reality check: Most people in Iraq are NOT insurgents, NOT extreamists, NOT "Terrorists". The majority of people are just normal people trying to live their lives while a minority of fanatical agressives tear things apart around them. Those normal people are what "Opperation Iraqi Freedom" was supposed to save. Instead, they've been dropped into a living hell.

The US had Damned well better stay in Iraq until the mess they cause is cleaned up. There's going to be a lot of blood until then, but TOUGH! That's what you get for pulling this kind of crap.


Mmm..

never mind that the only form of control was... a tyrant?

But no, I mean.. your all for peace love and happiness I am sure.. kick those evil republicans outa office and put Saddam back in place where people fell in line!

I would honestly give you my right leg and perhaps even my right index finger if you went up to a Kurdish man in Kurdistan (Northern Iraq) and spew your BS. No really. When you get over there, tell them that and survive your walk out.. I will literally disembody myself.

Study a little history.

We didn't dispose of a governing body, no we disposed of a powerful army, an army that could keep those it wanted to in check.

All we did was even out the playing field. Took away the big bad army, and let the world see if the minority would still be gassing people. Turns out they aren't.

Now, when the Sunni pricks decide to bomb a Shiite market what happens? Shiites go kill Sunnis. I would much rather see that then a Shiite insult the powers that be, and have that same man have his entire family raped in a dungeon then tortured to death in front of him for his language against a tyrant. I like that they can fight it out. Of course, takes a little common sense to understand that.. well war aint pretty. Never has been, isn't now, and well I wouldn't bet to much that it will get any better. I rather think that people like your self harp about this "oo but there was law and order before big nasty USA got there!" do it simply for political reasons, and if you do, you should be ashamed.

EDIT:

Oh yeah, to the OP.

You are incorrect in stating that 3,000 people die every month. That is ridiculously over exaggerated. Only in the past 3 months has it been THIS bad. And I believe November being the deadliest was the first to break 3,000 .. though Oct. might have as well. Still sad sure, but incorrect in fact.

[edit on 12/4/2006 by Rockpuck]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Kofi isnt a golden child..
But its wrong for people to criticise him.

The very second he took office, any UN office, he instantly became wide open for criticisms…and he has earned every last legitimate criticism.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
You dont work in that organistion for almost 40yrs just so you can rip the joint off in possibly the last appointment of your life.

History is rife of long-lived professional politicians ripping “the joint off”…c’mon!


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I think Kofi's the IDEAL person to be criticising bush on everything.

That’s you opinion and you know mine…Kofi should have stepped down along time ago.
Here is a good article for a start: How Many More Must Die Before Kofi Quits?


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The UN said iraq had no wmd's... and they wanted more time.

The UN never took the position that Iraq “had no WMD’s”…

Hans Blix, in late Jnauary of 2003 stated “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.” Later, in early March, Hans Blix reported “Iraq has accelerated its cooperation, but inspectors need more time to verify Iraq's compliance.” It was France, Germany and Russia pressing for more time, not the “UN”…hmmm, no interest there. Time simply ran out for verification to the tune of a decade

An example of the decade long cat and mouse game: Al Hakam

No where is there an official UN statement, especially prior to the invasion, that states “Iraq had no WMD’s”…Monday morning quarterbacking excluded.

The only seemingly verifiable information from the UN was that Iraq appeared to have abandoned its nuclear weapons program.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
That america LIED to get into Iraq.
They maniuplated media to presnet their TAKE on the sitaution,
and they deliberatley used the trust and faith the world put in america to their own advantage.

There are a number of threads on this…but the US did not need the notion of WMD to enter Iraq…Casus belli could have easily been established by both Britain and the US without ever mentioning WMD’s…I never bought the WMD possibilities as the only justifyable reason…It would be similar to buying a specific brand of car solely for the color...but this is a well covered topic elsewhere on this board.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
He is an amazing individual, who did everything he could for humanity.

There are well over one million dead under his direct watch that I would be willing to bet do not agree with you.


mg



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Kofi Anna is not responsbile for the dead.

Its not like he threw his hands in the air and said
'' fine, do what you want... go slaughter... its not my worry ''


How do you stop two countries going to war?
How do you stop rebel factions slaughtering people?

WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.

You dont work your entire life for peace and humanity just so you can get the position that most affects the WORLD.. then rip them off for $$$



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join