Bombs Kill at Least 90 People in Iraq
 

Bomb Attacks Strike
"A bomb followed by a mortar attack struck a market in a predominantly Shiite town north of Baghdad on Monday, killing at least 12 people and wounding nearly 30, police said."

The latest bombings were a further sign of what appears to be a renewed campaign of Sunni insurgent violence against Shiite targets. Last week, 142 Iraqis were killed or found dead on Tuesday alone, including 65 students at a leading Baghdad university who died in twin car bombings.

Al-Maliki was convinced of the truth of American intelligence reports which contended, among other things, that his protection of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia was isolating him in the Arab world and among moderates at home, two government officials said.

"Al-Maliki realized he couldn't keep defending the Mahdi Army because of the information and evidence that the armed group was taking part in the killings, displacing people and violating the state's sovereignty," said one official.

"There are many intelligence agencies acting on the ground, and they know what's going on," said the second official, confirming the Americans had given al-Maliki overwhelming evidence about the Mahdi Army's deep involvement in the sectarian slaughter.

Last Friday, in a bid to fend off an all-out American military offensive, al-Sadr ordered 30 lawmakers and six Cabinet ministers under his control to end their nearly two-month boycott of the government. They were back at their jobs Sunday."

I wonder why the violence is getting increasingly worse every time the freedom forces take over an insurgent area or an Iraqi political decision is made favoring freedom.

And the rest of the time, too.

One could ascribe it to desperation increasing the fury of the anti-democracy faction, or else just put it down to how bad fascists suck just generally.

HM - there are good things happening over there - we are taking small steps and trying to fight against a generation of supression and oppression. War isn't pretty and it virtually NEVER goes to plan. There have been mistakes, surprises and accidents as well as losses - no doubt, but this has to happen.

Why? Because #1 something vague about 9/11, or something about freedom or something #2 something else, about forcing people to have the right to make their own choice, by God, whether they like it or not, or #3 something about vaguely "striking back" at Islam, by ousting a secular leader and replacing him with Islamic leaders (???) or #4 something like Moe said on the Simpons after he decided to get the mechanical bull instead of cable TV, you know "sticking with your decisions" just to help soothe your buyer's remorse...or is there a new reason "why this has to happen" that I haven't heard yet? Maybe, just to be ornery?

I guess it's pretty efficient that Bush went in without one, then.

Yeah, thats right- He went in without a plan. Just throw a bunch of people over there and hope for the best. Thats about all he thought. I'm sure.:eyebrow:

Once "major combat operations" were "over", they had no plan. They sent random Heritage Foundation college grads over there to run things. Donald Rumsfeld said that the rampant looting was a right of free people. They truly were expecting the flowers in the streets, and the continuation of civil society.

Got a legitimate source for that quote?

We freed them from the tyrannical reign of a monster - why would we expect them to be grateful?

Some might say it's better the devil you know than the one you don't.

So now America is the devil?

I guess that depends on whose perspective you're asking for.

Obviously yours Ali, you made the reference.

"Shock and awe" doesn't pave the way for flower-strewn streets. We destroyed their infrastructure, disbanded their military, fired their civil service, and then expected everything to fall into place. They had no backup plan; in fact they believe that backup plans are counterproductive.

Thanks for that link - Nice of you to add the... "They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here." ...now and not in your original post. Although there are many, I'll add just one more for good measure. "...help pave the way for a new Iraqi government, a government that will be chosen by the Iraqi people, not by anyone else."

The Iraqi people are too divided to ever unite under a democratic leader.

Yes, in my paraphrase I skipped the platitudes and highlighted the horribly horribly wrong thing he said. How unfair of me.

Of course, the pollyanna platitudes show their lack of planning as well. Destroy their infrastructure and civil structure, and they can live their lives and do wonderful things! Then we can set up a more friendly government that will be chosen by the Iraqis and not anyone else! And it'll just take a few weeks!

Anyone who thought this would take a few weeks and not YEARS was kidding themselves. As we all know now, this is but a part of the war on terror.

This vague, lingering association between Iraq and terrorism...it got us there, then evaporated...but it just won't go away...what does it consist of?

The war on terror is no different than the war on drugs, It is impossible to win. We can not get everyone in the world to like America and the western world. "War on Terror" is just a catch-phrase that is used by the Bush administration to get people to support their agenda.

Do you think the Iraqi police are helping the situation at all? Did you see the video I posted on a different thread? The war isn't Iraq versus America it is Sunni Iraq versus Shiite Iraq and America is caught in the middle.

no way dude, we had that war on drugs and now nobody does drugs anymore

We learned to just say no *thank you*

You finally convined me - you're right we should just pack up all our shit and come home.

Lew Rockwell wrote an interesting piece on the nature of Saddam's regime. He argues that Saddam had very carefully and sometimes brutally woven together a country in which groups of people really hated one another. Iraqis lack a common ideology so the Bushite idea of implementing a new state by killing Saddam and holding elections falls far short. Rockwell's solution is much cheaper in blood and treasure and comes from the Iraqi people themselves.

So what should happen? The US should abandon Baghdad. It should, in effect, allow the country to "fall apart" in the same way that Gorbachev let his empire dissolve. Iraq would split into many states, some of them noncontiguous. Governing units of all shapes and sizes would appear. The main reason for the ghastly killing – fear of the rule by one group over another – would vanish. Here is the highest hope for peace in Iraq.

So long as the US insists that Iraq be a single nation under one government, it will inspire chaos and killing. Bush was wrong, but in a way that is usually not understood. His mistake was not in overthrowing the state but in hoping to create and control a new one.

I've often thought the same thing. But the argument against that is that Turkey will attack the Kurds if that happens.

Maybe they won't if we ask/tell them not to. Of course we would have to guarantee the Turks that the Kurds won't give them trouble.
Of course the Kurds that live in Turkey, we couldn't do anything about, unless we occupied that area or expelled all the Kurds out of Turkey.
Kind of like the wonderful way the British separated The Indians and Pakistanis.:rolleyes: