Satellite images show ethnic cleanout in Iraq, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 19-9-2008 @ 04:22 PM by matttheratt
Reuters Source


"By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement.

"Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said Agnew, who studies ethnic conflict.

(visit the link for the full news article)



This doesn't surprise me. I think Bush's supporters, desperate to try to find anything positive about his administration, have shoved their interpretation of cause-and-effect in Iraq down our throats.

The article doesn't say the surge meant nothing. Only that it was one of numerous things, and not likely the most important thing, that brought down violence in Iraq. This has been the view of many Iraq experts for quite some time, but we ignore experts in favor of pundits in this country.

Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 19/9/2008 by Mirthful Me]


reply posted on 19-9-2008 @ 06:03 PM by matttheratt
reply to post by bruxfain


I don't think anyone ever blamed the US MILITARY for the sectarian violence (except perhaps a few wackos). They did blame the The US for invading Iraq in the first place and creating the conditions that lead to the sectarian violence. But I frankly never heard anyone say the military caused that violence. It was the policy of unprovoked pre-emptive war that caused it. The US Military did not create that policy, and except for a few unfortunate incidents (the worst of which were caused by Blackwater, not the US Military) I would certainly agree that most of it was caused by radicals. But we created conditions in Iraq that allowed that radicalism to flourish.

Had we never attacked, or at least had an administration that was actually prepared for what a post-war Iraq would look like, that violence could have been avoided.


[edit on 19-9-2008 by matttheratt]

[edit on 19-9-2008 by matttheratt]



reply posted on 19-9-2008 @ 06:11 PM by bruxfain
Originally posted by matttheratt
reply to post by bruxfain


I don't think anyone ever blamed the US MILITARY for the sectarian violence (except perhaps a few wackos). They did blame the The US for invading Iraq in the first place and creating the conditions that lead to the sectarian violence. But I frankly never heard anyone say the military caused that violence. It was the policy of unprovoked pre-emptive war that caused it. The US Military did not create that policy.


[edit on 19-9-2008 by matttheratt]


Oh glad to here that but I recall hearing accusations regarding the Army killing innocent civilians in Iraq and since most of the innocent civilians died between 20 March 2006 and 16 December 2007, I just assumed that's what they were talking about. I should get my hearing checked.

I'm sure that they'll happily accept the accusation that they started the war and sent their leader to the gallows and killed his sons and grandson. Considering who they were they won't feel much guilt about that. I too can live with that, just not the innocent civilians part.


reply posted on 20-9-2008 @ 07:47 AM by bruxfain
Originally posted by matttheratt
Originally posted by bruxfain
Oh glad to here that but I recall hearing accusations regarding the Army killing innocent civilians in Iraq and since most of the innocent civilians died between 20 March 2006 and 16 December 2007, I just assumed that's what they were talking about. I should get my hearing checked.

I utterly don't know what you're talking about. Could you be more specific? WHO said WHAT in this time? Did someone accuse the US Army of ethnic cleansing?

Originally posted by bruxfain
I'm sure that they'll happily accept the accusation that they started the war and sent their leader to the gallows and killed his sons and grandson. Considering who they were they won't feel much guilt about that. I too can live with that, just not the innocent civilians part.


Again, does not compute. Maybe for you, but not for me. By all means, elaborate.


The accusations I am refering may just be coming from unofficial sources on this website that generally like to allege that the US army is systematicaly killing innocent civilians in Iraq. I cannot remember the exact threads, but this study seems to suggest the military is not as much responsible for the deaths of civilians in Iraq as Iraqi themselves.

Answer #2: During the buildup to the War opinion polls reported that 7 out of 10 Americans supported the Iraq invasion. The army went in with permission, blessing even, killed Saddam's sons and his grandson, captured Saddam and sent him to the gallows for his crimes. That is no big deal to me, as the Hussein men had it coming. But I don't like hearing wild accusation that the Army turned its weapons against Iraqi civilians.


reply posted on 21-9-2008 @ 12:36 PM by matttheratt
Originally posted by bruxfain


The accusations I am refering may just be coming from unofficial sources on this website that generally like to allege that the US army is systematicaly killing innocent civilians in Iraq. I cannot remember the exact threads, but this study seems to suggest the military is not as much responsible for the deaths of civilians in Iraq as Iraqi themselves.


Well, who cares about unsubstantiated accusations from someone who posts on a web site? I really wouldn't worry about that. People post ludicrous accusations here and on many other web sites all the time.

Originally posted by bruxfain
Answer #2: During the buildup to the War opinion polls reported that 7 out of 10 Americans supported the Iraq invasion. The army went in with permission, blessing even, killed Saddam's sons and his grandson, captured Saddam and sent him to the gallows for his crimes. That is no big deal to me, as the Hussein men had it coming. But I don't like hearing wild accusation that the Army turned its weapons against Iraqi civilians.


Just because 7 out of 10 people agreed with the invasion doesn't mean it was right. About 7 out of 10 now say it was the wrong decision, and many people only supported it because the Bush Administration conveyed the idea that Hussein was building a nuclear weapon with intentions of using it in a terroristic way against the United States, which was ridiculous and has since been totally discredited.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^