digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Iraq a country no more. Like much else, that was not planned

independent.co.uk — Five years of occupation have destroyed Iraq as a country. Baghdad is a collection of hostile Sunni and Shia ghettoes divided by high concrete walls. Different districts even have different national flags. The fall in the death rate is partly because ethnic cleansing has done its grim work and in much of Baghdad there are no mixed areas left.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • caferrell, on 03/18/2008, -7/+104Mission Accomplished
    • roosterjm2k2, on 03/18/2008, -9/+12You know, though...was watching cnn yesterday..there was a poll of the iraqi people handled by bbc, reuters, ap, cnn, msnbc (maybe more) ... the majority of iraqis (polled) said that they actually feel that their lives have improved since we came in...

      Now, im all for getting out of there (i wasnt for going in in the first place) , so take that as you will...
      • SzaszMan, on 03/18/2008, -2/+8Were most of those polled Shia or Sunni?
        • nospinhere, on 03/18/2008, -13/+2rooster, of course the liberal press won't report that or the fact of how things dramatically improved over the last couple years. It wouldn't sell papers. but ripping on GWB and fox news does. ;)
          • caferrell, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4Things have improved because of ethnically cleansed neighborhoods and because we are paying the Sunni warlords and Sadr not to kill us. Iraq is a failed state. Nothing works. Baghdad is no longer a city, it is a collection of connected ghettos surrounded by concrete blast walls. Something over a half million Iraqis are dead (did the dead ones participate in the poll?).
            Things are just great in Iraq, in fact why don't you go there and build yourself a little villa on the banks of the Euphrates to take advantage of the peace and burgeoning economy? I understand the land prices are quite low.
      • notoneofus, on 03/18/2008, -2/+14Those are also the ones who are still alive and capable of answering polls.
      • bsmang, on 03/18/2008, -9/+2bury me.
      • tecunx, on 03/18/2008, -2/+31very good, specially since the Bush death toll in 4 years has surpassed the Hussein death toll in 25 years.
      • OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 03/18/2008, -0/+7wait, you heard about a POLL? conducted by the MEDIA? seriuosly, why do you believe what you hear about the war? wait 20 years for documents to be declassified, until then, our opinions are just speculation
      • theskyisblue, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2LOL a poll that who did? FOX ? BBC? CNN? LMAO wake up kid
    • spawnfree, on 03/18/2008, -1/+10Divided. Conquered.
    • JimmySpaza, on 03/18/2008, -22/+4"Mission Accomplished" referred to the initial military operations...not the entire Iraq campaign.

      But, you knew this, right? Ooopppsss. Duh!
      • piradians, on 03/18/2008, -2/+18Actually it referred to major operations.

        Duh indeed.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1It had to do with everything Bush ever said at any time any where.. because I said so
        • NotAChickenHawk, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5So what's happened since has not been major? Funny, the "surge" seemed like a pretty major operation to me...
        • freedomkeeper, on 03/18/2008, -3/+1Actually, I think a column of 300,000 troops slicing into a country vitually uncontested was major. 15,000 troops added to an existing contingent, that's flexing muscle.
          • caferrell, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3No, thats illegal and immoral occupation by a conquering foreign power.
          • NotAChickenHawk, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3Hmmm, well, I for one thought the idea behind the surge was Mr. Bush trying to show us he was doing something major to bring the situation under control. Considering how many men have died for all of this, I sure hope he was trying to do something more than flex some muscles.
      • NotAChickenHawk, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5Uh, no. "Mission Accomplished" symbolizes the extreme arrogance with which this was was planned, failing to take into account what would happen or what should be done after the Iraqi army was defeated and Saddam toppled. It represents the point in time when the pre-war plans ended. "Mission Accomplished" is the slogan of a tiny little man too eager to claim and celebrate a victory for himself when untold lives had yet to be lost and and untold years of warfare had yet to be waged. "Mission Accomplished" is the wishful thinking of an administration and a government who believed that the military was the solutution to all of Iraq's problems when what Iraq needed was people who could administer and govern. And "Mission Accomplished" is the saying of a dimwitted simpleton who thought that the war was over and everything after would be smooth sailing.
      • caferrell, on 03/18/2008, -0/+7@jimmyspaza, Actually I said Mission Accomplished because it has been accomplished more or less exactly as the plan´s architects desired. There were no WMDs and everyone in the White House (except perhaps Dubya) knew that. There was no connection between Saddam and any attacks on the USA.
        There was however grave concern among our Middle Eastern friends with the white and light blue flag that UN sanctions against Iraq were going to be lifted. They were concerned that after lifting sanctions that Hussein or any future strong leader of a unified Iraq would pose a threat to Israel. Therefore the architects of the plan, Doug Feith, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz (all avowed Zionists and decorated by Israel) designed the Debacle in the Desert to completely deconstruct Iraq. That is what has happened. Iraq is no longer a nation and poses no threat to Israel.

        MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
    • 5urr3al5am, on 03/18/2008, -12/+1Here we go again.. drag out the nasty old tired corpse you call Iraq and try to scare up liberal support
    • Noods, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4"Unintended consequences". Remember that term for the next time our politicians want to trek through another country.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 03/18/2008, -19/+49Ethnic cleansing of Mesopotamia, including the total erasure of Iraqi culture and society, was one of the main goals of the USA/Neocon war of aggression. It's in a similar vein with the Iran/Iraq war where Reagan sided with and armed his friend Saddam Hussein ( who was busy killing Iraqis much to the delight of zionists and American puppets ), but also sold arms to Iran in order to maximize casualties on both sides. You could call it genocide-by-proxy. Clinton's genocidal sanctions of the 1990's, we're talking sanctions against basic medicine, fertilizer, food, healthcare equipment, was responsible for around half a million Iraqi children dying. Yes, the genocide of Mesopotamia has a long bi-partisan history.
    • JimmySpaza, on 03/18/2008, -19/+2Ah, love that Washington, DC leftwing view of reality.
      • wendelgee2, on 03/18/2008, -3/+17Which part of this is factually incorrect, Jimmy?
        • crazydiode, on 03/18/2008, -2/+9he wouldn't know. He has his head in sand...
        • JimmySpaza, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1"Ethnic cleansing of Mesopotamia, including the total erasure of Iraqi culture and society, was one of the main goals of the USA/Neocon war of aggression."

          Let's start with this. Prove it.
    • inajeep, on 03/18/2008, -2/+6Occam's razor: Oil / Power / Control
  • clcindylou, on 03/18/2008, -28/+7http://www.google.com/search?q=Patrick+*****&ie ...

    Can Someone Please Tell me Why Reporters Cannot be non Biased When Reporting news. As News Is supposed to be Facts Not opinions. This guys stories are no different than those of people you hate like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, ONE SIDED, the only difference is that BOTH of those guys Are talk show hosts, and tell you that what they say is opinion, or fact in their opinion. not just FACT. This GUY Reports NEWS (Supposed facts). I'm sure at Least 65% of what he says is true That is the only way to make it believable. But I didn't take allot of time researching as it is pretty easy to see which way the wind blows when you google someone. the above link will tell you which side of the isle he writes his stories on. And that is Fact.
    • Acewrap, on 03/18/2008, -3/+8Boo ***** hoo. Go back to lgf if you want to read fantasy.
    • ghostpawrunner, on 03/18/2008, -0/+15It says quite clearly "Opinion" at the top of the article. And if you feel you could refute Mr. ***** view of Iraq from his time spent there, perhaps you could share your Iraqi experiences with us?
      • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -0/+11Sitting in front of Fox News coverage while furiously masturbating doesn't count.
      • clcindylou, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I never said this one article was news. I said that if you looked at his news reporting you will see a very biased viewpoint. My brother who has done 2 tours in Iraq and 1 in Afghanistan could tell you plenty more than this cook. But I am not him but he tells me he will gladly do 5 more tours in Iraq.
    • Dundasbro, on 03/18/2008, -2/+5Oh please, nothing is objective. There is going to be levels of subjectivity in everything that is reported and everything that you say and do. As well as the fact that it is clearly noted by the "Opinion" heading that this is (funnily enough) an opinion piece, and not reported as actual news.

      Oh and i'm shocked and appalled that there have been no "LoL *****" comments yet.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 03/18/2008, -1/+7The "news" agencies switched from "providing news" to "making news and profit" a long time ago. Unfortunately a lot of people continue to watch news shows and think they're reporting the news.
  • Ferre1, on 03/18/2008, -13/+17I'm not surprised. Don't forget that Islam, the Jewish religion and Christianity are all based on the same scriptures, they all worship the same god and apart from some details, all the Abrahamic religons (Islam, Jewish and Christianity) are about the same. Of course those who practise one of the different brands from the same religion feel uncomfortable when one of them is critisized for he bigotry in there because at the end of the day they know that in essense they are all the same.
    • Ferre1, on 03/18/2008, -7/+1Ignore the above please, I accidently wrote it under the wrong article.
    • nixfu, on 03/18/2008, -14/+2>Don't forget that Islam, the Jewish religion and Christianity are all based on the same scriptures

      Clueless retard alert....retard-o-meter is on 11!


      • MellerTime, on 03/18/2008, -1/+11Oh the irony...
      • ever, on 03/18/2008, -1/+6They ARE based on the same scriptures. Read your history.
        • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1Insomuch as Christianity and Islam reject much of Judaism and all of each other.
          • jpmoney03, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Your right Christianity totally doesn't believe the old testament at all. Its not that they do not believe the same scriptures its what they take out of them that leads to differences.
          • zeabu, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2the OT is the Tora, the Jewish bible, you knew that, didn't you. And if in your life would take the Qu'ran, just read the first part and see it is.... the OT.
            Dammmmn.... That must be quite coincidencial..
            But then again, you should have read the bible itself, too.
          • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Suck it, Zeabu. You know that Judaism is MUCH more than the Torah, and that even then, Christianity rejected much of the laws of Judaism. Eating kosher. Sabbath as Saturday. The lack of an afterlife. The Messiah as a war leader who would rebuild the temple of Solomon. Out of all of the Judaic writings, Christianity only kept the Torah, and even then it ignores most of it.

            If Christianity had kept all of Judaism, STILL only those of Hebrew descent could be Christian, because YHVS is the god of the Jews, NOT anyone else.

            There's a reason the Jews don't seek converts; it's their god, NOT YOURS.
    • WhistlinTom, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1uh. no. you're wrong. Christianity and Judaism are similar but the split is on who the Messiah is. . . which is a HUGE split! what the crunk?? Don't clump every religion together. They are not at all alike. And it's not fair to any of them to do so just because they are monotheistic.
  • Curlz31, on 03/18/2008, -9/+5Read the works of Bernard Lewis and you'll know why this is exactly what they planned.
    • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6Or you could just tell us, jerk.
    • Zilk, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Is this an article or book..?
    • Kizilbash, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Bernard Lewis is an idiot and a tool. Hardly anyone (except the neocons) takes him seriously anymore.
  • bromac, on 03/18/2008, -3/+23"Divide et impera" - Divide and conquer. Oldest trick in the empire building book.
  • headzoo, on 03/18/2008, -12/+10Most Americans (Including the president) don't know the difference between Sunni and *****. What made us think we could "fix" that area of the world? Don't you have to know the rules of the game before you can play?
    • notoneofus, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4Apparently you don't know the difference between Shiite and *****.
      • headzoo, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Oh, you burned me with a spelling error! I should now hang my head in shame.
    • NonServium, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2What made "us" think that? Who is this "us" that you're referring to? The US government is not "us".
    • zeabu, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1When having the intent of being president, you should know things like that.
      When running a country, you should know things like that.
      When invading a country, you should know it's history, and thus, you should know things like that.
      Problem with Bush is, before 2000, he even didn't know there were 49 other states in America.
    • foofightrs777, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1And the Sunnis and the Shiites are just the tip of the ethnice iceberg.
  • acatzr800, on 03/18/2008, -8/+15Apparently people forget that the Sunni/Shiite infighting has been going on for MUCH longer than the US occupation. Its only now that we have press actually allowed into Iraq that we're hearing about this.
    • ukblacknight, on 03/18/2008, -2/+13The fighting was suppressed though under Saddam's regime. When the coalition removed him from power, the place became lawlessness, and thus the fighting flared up.
    • piradians, on 03/18/2008, -4/+13Actually before the invasion the idea of inter-sectarian neighborhoods, business, and even marriages was widely accepted in Iraq. Also, women and Christians also had more security and freedom under Saddam. Sad but true.
      • JimmySpaza, on 03/18/2008, -18/+3Women had MORE security and freedom under Saddam?

        Yeah, as long as they didn't go to school, wore clothes over 90% of their body, and obeyed every male voice in hearing range...yeah, I guess that's freedom.

        Now, they go to school, don't have to cover up everything but their eyes, and are not slaves to the men.
        • piradians, on 03/18/2008, -2/+21Your ignorance about Saddam's Iraq is showing.

          Before the 1991 invasion and subsequent sanctions Iraq's literacy rate for women was the highest in the middle east. Saddam didn't rule under Sharia law, in fact he had women and non-muslims in high positions of government. The Baath party was fundamentally secular. Women didn't have to keep covered, Christians felt safe in their churches. Barbers were allowed to cut hair without fear of reprimand.

          It has been since the 2003 invasion that we see women being forced to cover up, Christians in hiding, sectarian divisions in Bagdad, and the implementation of Sharia law.
        • moonguidex, on 03/18/2008, -1/+7Go read.
          • haydesigner, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Heck, we'd be happy if JimmySpaza read anything above 4th grade level (which rules out Limbaugh and O'Reilly).
    • Kizilbash, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1That´s like saying Europe is a hopeless case because it has a history of religious war and hate. There has not been a century since the onset of Christianity when there was no religious war or antisemitic pogrom.
  • datastorageguy, on 03/18/2008, -24/+8It's amazing how incessant liberal pessimism is. Violence and deaths has dropped dramatically in Iraq for the past 6 months and there is a democratically elected government. Don't worry children...everything is going to be ok.
    • SzaszMan, on 03/18/2008, -2/+7Drop the "children" line and you could write press releases.
      • bsmang, on 03/18/2008, -3/+4Naa.. I think he'd have to be capable of using good grammar for those.
      • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6Yeah, the "children" line is only implied in the press releases.
    • rhedwolf, on 03/18/2008, -4/+10What makes you so sure that their current government was democratically elected?
      • JimmySpaza, on 03/18/2008, -10/+2http://sinequanon.spleenville.com/archives/images/ ...
        • haydesigner, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Purple ink is your proof? Seriously?
      • datastorageguy, on 03/18/2008, -6/+1I suppose the UN is right about global warming but in error in determining the veracity of Iraqi elections?

        http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13177 ...
        • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -2/+10You know, most people and agencies can be right about some things and wrong about others.
          • datastorageguy, on 03/18/2008, -10/+1Now there is the liberal response I was looking for. Start with a theory and find obscure evidence or manufacture it if need be. Whatever source of information supports your agenda you will champion and any source of information that destroys your ridiculous world view is wrong.

            No wonder liberals need government handouts. They aren't even capable of common sense or rational thought.
          • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -2/+9Dude, suck a *****. I'm not a "liberal", and I don't care about global warming or Iraqi elections. I'm just clarifying - FOR YOU - that no agency or individual is always falliable or infalliable.
          • datastorageguy, on 03/18/2008, -6/+2You may not be a liberal but you sure are an asshole.
          • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -2/+6I'd rather be an asshole than a partisan scumbat. It's people like you that keep America in the gutter.
          • haydesigner, on 03/19/2008, -2/+4Funny, when I was reading this thread, it was not @Kurlumbenus that I was going to call an ass. *He* wasn't the one making vicious assumptions about someone else that he never met.
        • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -2/+5So stop assuming that "X WAS WRONG ABOUT Y SO IT MUST BE WRONG ABOUT Z, TOO!" is a valid argument.
    • piradians, on 03/18/2008, -2/+15I would worry about conservative ignorance before harping on about liberal pessimism.
    • Bravesguy18, on 03/18/2008, -2/+6That might have to do with the millions of Iraqis emigrating to other countries. There is no need to kill them if they leave.
    • overtoke, on 03/18/2008, -1/+6DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE? "The fall in the death rate is partly because ethnic cleansing has done its grim work and in much of Baghdad there are no mixed areas left."
    • zeabu, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6If there's noone more to kill, violence and death tolls drop drastically.
      It's like saying killing all black people is the sollution against racism, because if no blacks exists, they cannot be discriminated.
    • Feralvision, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Reality hurts.
  • scabbers, on 03/18/2008, -23/+18Nice going, America. You guys are a gigantic nation of fail.
    • NoCt1, on 03/18/2008, -17/+5Wow. someone seems upset. As much as I hate to say it.. Our country can kick your countries ASS.
      • tendonut, on 03/18/2008, -0/+15"You know, my cumulated GPA at Harvard was a 3.99"
        "Oh yeah! well my cumulative GPA at STFU was "I can kick your ass"
      • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -1/+9...unless you go by literacy rate, economic stability, or average IQ
        • moonguidex, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2and common sense, or degree of helplessness against totalitarian regimes...
    • andygavin, on 03/18/2008, -1/+11Careful you might start a fight you can't afford.
    • saigumi, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4Aww.. scabbers, are you upset because your country actually built the largest empire in the world a few hundred years ago and watched it slip out of its grip country by country so that now it is a tiny island nation floating in the sea with gangs of chavs happy slapping because they can't figure out anything productive to do.
    • 4degrees, on 03/18/2008, -1/+4America hasn't failed..... yet.
      • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -2/+3Unless you count Vietnam. Or grenada. Or democracy.
  • poidh, on 03/18/2008, -26/+14"Five years of occupation have destroyed Iraq as a country"

    Buried as inaccurate. "Five years of jihad have destroyed Iraq as a country": amended for accuracy.
    • Acewrap, on 03/18/2008, -11/+14Because there was tons of sectarian violence before the US invaded and destabilized the country, right? Right?
      • NoCt1, on 03/18/2008, -15/+5There was actually a lot of violence there before also.
        Buried for failed Sarcasm.
        • SzaszMan, on 03/18/2008, -4/+9Mass sectarian violence? "Jihad"? Ethnic cleansing on a nationwide scale? No, there was none of that before we invaded and occupied Iraq. Like it or not, Iraq was a stable country before we invaded it and broke it into pieces. That's why people like Donald Rumsfeld supported Saddam for so many years, knowing full well he was a bloodthirsty dictator - because he provided stability.
      • tattertech, on 03/18/2008, -9/+7Well, there was a good bit actually. Don't confuse lack of press for lack of events. While it may not have been at the same levels as when Saddam was ruled, he had this little thing about killing other ethnic groups. Oh, and there were Shi'ite attacks - just when they happened Saddam was a little more clear about the message he wanted to send out about them.
      • saigumi, on 03/18/2008, -2/+2Yep. Though the violence was pretty much one sided back then. Someone ticks off Saddam's side gets themselves and their families burried in a mass grave. Retaliation after that? Entire village gassed.
  • cryofan, on 03/18/2008, -10/+11splitting up Iraq would be a very good thing for the people who live there. If that matters to anyone, which I doubt.

    You see, the more homogeneous and non-diverse a nation, the more united it is. THe more united a nation, the more they can communicate with each other and unite against the elite.
    When the rich and powerful want to better control a nation, they include as many different factions in a nation or state as possible. They do this because they know that they must DIVIDE ET IMPERA--latin for Divide and Rule.

    As James Madison wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, America was to be organized via its constitution to take advantage of the Divide et Impera maxim. Madison designed the American constitution so as to DIVIDE the populace by ENLARGING THE POLITICAL DISTRICTS FROM WHICH POLITICIANS ARE ELECTED. That is why we have a president elected from the entire nation and Senators elected from entire states--because in such large districts there are more factions than in smaller voting districts. Thus, as Madison wrote, the voters cannot "unite to discover their common interest."

    So, by dividing Iraq up into independent nations that are more homogeneous and therefore more united, the people in each district can better "unite to find their common interest" and therefore stop the elite from controlling the nation.

    This DIVIDE ET IMPERA principle is why America has no universal healthcare, why its elite are not taxed much, and why its war machine runs amok. Compare the america electoral structure to that of the nations of western europe: over there, the members of parliament have the real control--NOTHING can stand in their way, as can happen here in america, where the senate and the president "check and balance" the house of representatives. Over there, the members of parliament are elected from SMALL voting districts, whereas here in america, our senators and president are elected from very large voting districts, large voting districts which include many factions are therefore cannot "unite to find their common interests."

    Well, ya larned sumthin' today, dint ya?
    • zeabu, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2So you are going to split up the US in 50.000 pieces?
      We, the EU, are united in diversity.
  • bosssmiley, on 03/18/2008, -2/+7Like anyone who gave this five minutes of thought didn't see it coming. Heck, I'm trying to think of any time in the last 5,000 years that Mesopotamia has been anything other than an autocracy or chaos. The Iraqis aren't politically *ready* for democracy at the moment. They don't have a political culture that resonates to things like the Bill of Rights. Heck, politically they're barely at the stage Hobbes talked about in "Leviathan".
    Iraq, a classic illustration of the rule that when you remove the dictator from a totalitarian regime and put a big fat nothing in its place (ie: an American-backed puppet government that doesn't enjoy the confidence of the people) you just get chaos.
    • tre101, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2True, the west needs to stop trying to force democracy on countries who are either not ready for it yet, or culturally incompatible with it. It just causes problems. Just because dictators or theocracies don’t sit well with us, doesn’t mean they don’t work for others. Change needs to happen organically in order to stick.
  • DangerCollie, on 03/18/2008, -3/+16The reason the attacks have dropped had little to do with the surge. The bigger factor was the cease fire with Muqtada al-Sadr. The overall level of attacks dropped from 1,500 a month to around 500 a month.
    Only a Republican would consider 15 attacks a day and a 12 billion a month stalemate a victory.
    The place will go to hell when the cease fire ends...and it will end. It will end whether our guys are in the middle or not.
    • 4degrees, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1i thought the drop in attacks were because they are running out of people to attack.
  • tre101, on 03/18/2008, -4/+11Madman that Saddam was, I still feel the world would be a better place in general with him there. Less Iraqis would be dying everyday, he prevented the rise of Islamic extremism in Iraq, and the oil reserves would have been far more secure and stable. Instead he has been removed and killed, all the political power in the region is heading towards Iran (a far bigger potential threat), the whole Islamic world is up in arms and getting more extreme by the day (is this not what they were trying to stop?), a new generation of terrorists will grow up in Iraq from hating the allies for occupying their nation, we are stuck in a never ending and unwinnable war that we really can’t afford… Is there a reason for this that I am missing, or was it all really just to line George and his pal’s pockets? Scary.
    • simg, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2i suspect that this is the reason western governments tolerated and helped him for so long.
    • zeabu, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1One of the reasons the US has attacked him, was because he changed his oilprices from $ to €.. for the US, thus, he wasn't stable anymore.
      • solid12345, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1*****, Iraq was under UN sanctions and all they got for oil was food, neither dollars or euros.
  • EggoTrip, on 03/18/2008, -1/+7The main take home point from all the articles I've read regarding the Iraq war is that you can't change people. The Iraq people were not united and didn't have a mentality of democracy. Under a dictator they could have as much peace as possible. One day perhaps the winds of change could have by influence added democracy and unity to all the middle east. The occupation has likely post-poned that event for many generations. Also, as the article states - it destroyed a country.

    Military force is not a catalyst for democracy. That only comes from ideas, bravery, and unity.
    • zeabu, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Democracy is an evolution, not a switch, that's what most people forget.
  • IslandDog, on 03/18/2008, -19/+6Another BS liberal opinion piece.
    • SzaszMan, on 03/18/2008, -2/+10I'll bet you didn't even bother to find out if the writer is actually a liberal or not, do you? If it challenges your preconcieved notion, it's "liberal," huh? Did you even read the article?
    • inajeep, on 03/18/2008, -0/+9Your brief and non-essential declaration isn't backed up by any facts or reasoning. If the article was done by an Albanian communist it doesn't make the article true or false.
      • IslandDog, on 03/18/2008, -3/+1Just like the article, no facts or reasoning.
    • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Island Dog, your ignorance is amusing. I doubt you could name a single thing the author has ever written. Liberal? Hah. Funny guy.
      /Not a liberal.
  • BerryZilla, on 03/18/2008, -18/+1We need to just nuke that part of the world and Africa. Heh. They are all stuck in the past and are violent in groups. It seems they all have a lynch mentality.
    • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6So, you want to kill them because they are violent and have a lynch mentality.
      • BerryZilla, on 03/18/2008, -5/+0About 90% of the world conflicts/problems are in the middle east and Africa... So, yeah. Heh.
        • 4degrees, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6sounds like you have a lynch mentality too, you want to be first to die?
        • zeabu, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Maybe we put the fire in there? We Europe and the US have created the problems that are there right now. If anyone would have to be nuked, it would have be ourselves. But as you know, violence is no sollution.
  • dilbert, on 03/18/2008, -5/+211) Go to war and ruin a country under false pretenses
    2) Secure their national resources
    3) Increase oil price
    4) Double profit
    • ronaldinho, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1And the longer we stay in Iraq, the more oil prices will go up. You tell people that gas prices will RISE if we secure even more of them, they will listen. Also, contrary to other commodities, oil does have their own peculiar supply-and-demand model. It's basically higher supply, the HIGHER the price, because there are few competitors for them, and they can all collude.
    • andygavin, on 03/18/2008, -3/+1If you forgot the oil for a moment and pretended that someone was attacking your troops and people abroad. This is an illegitimate group who make personal and public attacks. They demand that you leave their lands as they belong to them. What do you do? The attacks are escalating, what do you do? Pull out, talk, or go in?

      Then there is the oil.
      • zeabu, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Iraq NEVER did attack the US. not in 1991, not with the second Gulf War, not now, not in 1900, NEVER.
        • andygavin, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1I never said they did. But Al qaeda declared war on the US in the name of Iraq: they were illegitimate. The declaration of jihad explicitly mentions Iraq and the first gulf war especially the sanctions imposed. I'm not telling you what I would have done. But what would be your choice? Just saying it's wrong doesn't actually solve the problems at the time of going to war.

          It has been mishandled and botched. I was trying to say that "it's oil" is simplistic. It is clear to me that there's no shortage of oil, and if it were all about oil then America could have carried on the way it was.

          Real reasons for war were broadcast certainly in the UK. But they were quickly replaced with a pack of lies.

          Is it right? Of course it's not: doing the Right thing wasn't the choice made.
    • 4degrees, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2you need that profit to pay $3500/hour for sluts.
  • sdellboy, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5"Democracy forever teases us with the contrast between its ideals and its realities, between its heroic possibilities and its sorry achievements." - Agnes Repplier
  • IPublius, on 03/18/2008, -16/+7This is obviously a biased article from a biased reporter who is skewing the facts in the same way that others do. Note that the separations mentioned existed long before Hussein fell from power. The Shia and the Sunni have hated each other and particularly so in this area since Ali and Hussein were killed there (look it up).
    That is nothing new, nor is the Kurds being on their own. OMG!!! The Kurds have their own flag?!?!? Wait, they've had one since shortly after the first Gulf War. Maybe we shouldn't mention that part. I suppose that we also shouldn't look closely at the article and note that the only area that he uses as an excuse for saying there is a full blown civil war and ethnic cleansing is Baghdad. It's a big city, but it is far from being the whole country. Maybe there is a reason he doesn't mention other areas. Could it be because they are relatively peaceful and people are getting on with their lives?
    And what is up with that part about the kid's family donating Republican? Did he just feel the urge to throw something else in there for good measure? That whole section smacks of fantasy. I have no doubt that some situation bearing a small resemblance to what he said happened, but please, I find it hard to believe that he interviewed the soldier to find out not only that he was Republican, but that his family was as well and that they also donated money to the Republican Party. Then, he went over to the group of Iraqis standing on the side of the road and asked each how many languages they spoke and what their education level was. How many PhD's would you find in any random assortment of people even here in America outside of a college environment? This article is way off base.
    If you wish to dislike the war and the US, by all means, please do so. But please, for the sake of all that is good and logical, please don't be stupid about it.
    • LordKaT, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3I dug you down because you used too many words.
    • lee4hmz, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2This was in the Opinion section of the newspaper it came from, so of course it's biased. If it bothers you, don't read it.
  • nastronomical, on 03/18/2008, -14/+4Bias reporting from the :Independent" say it aint so, no fricken way...LOL. Libtards are like so easily manipulated. For the type of people who refer to themselves as intellectually "Elite" you sure dont know ***** about Biased reporting.
    • ronaldinho, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5It clearly said "Opinion" at the top of the page, and you can call me a lib-tard too, but I totally agree with the author
    • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5Well, you are the masters at it. We bow to your superior ability to bend the truth.
    • Feralvision, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Stick to your fox news.
  • bsmang, on 03/18/2008, -2/+4Their description of the incredible level of protection needed for the PM to venture out of the green zone made me think of the general level of protection Bush needs to travel anywhere in the U.S.
  • rex3, on 03/18/2008, -10/+1Americans & Europeans are the biggest dumb f*cks the world has ever known, FFS!!! CAN YOU NOT SEE WHO RUNS AND PAYS YOUR POLITICIANS, ISRAEL AND THE ZIONIST JEWS, THEY EVEN GOT YOU CHANGING YOUR RELIGOUN TO PRAY FOR ISRAEL, MORE SO THAN JESUS HIMSELF.
    • simg, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3um ok, who ?
    • Kurlumbenus, on 03/18/2008, -3/+2***** Jesus.
    • saigumi, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1I like being controlled by the Zionists than live in the UK where the gov't is controlled by the Budhists and Scientology.

      I'm just pulling religions out of my ass because that Zionism conspiracy is worth. Do you realize that Israel has existed for about 5000 years now and this current inception isn't anything new? When did they stop teaching history in UK schools?
    • zeabu, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1I know my country is run by money, as is yours (you know that, don't you).

      I'm agnost, that means I've thought about it and came to the conclusion there is no god, it's not I took it for granted.

      I know where my caps-lock is, and in fact, I disabled it, because I don't have to shout to make my points valid.

      So, rex, tell me, in which paradise do you live? You can say all people in your country are smart? Come on, if you think that, that implies you yourself are not smart, that means you're average or even below. You know damn well that not even 10% of people in whatever country are "smart". If you want to change that, you have to select unborns on base of intelligence, and then you are entering a quite difficult, ethical discussion. I don't have problems with that, because it's already done regarding the sex of the unborn, and I think in contrary of that, intelligence can add value. But designer-babies cut off discussion already.
  • tfox2k1, on 03/18/2008, -11/+2Iraq will never be at peace. Its not the fault of the US or other Western countries.
    • fddp2754, on 03/18/2008, -3/+1Great excuse. It's not our job to make a bad situation worse. That's what we did. Yes it is our fault in this case. Let's just own up to it. We didn't have to do this. There was not one justification for starting this war EXCEPT FOR OIL, the great American addiction.
    • Feralvision, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Who's fault is it then?
  • Trunzo, on 03/18/2008, -10/+3It wasn't a "country" before we invaded anyway. Marked for inaccuracy.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/18/2008, -3/+6There's "ethnic cleansing" in Iraq now because Saddam forced ethnic mixing on his country under the threat of death. Saddam sent Sunnis out into Shia areas as a ruling class to dominate and oppress the Shias the same way the Edward I of England did to the Scots and Welsh. At the same time, he forced the Shias off of their land (google Marsh Arabs) and moved them into ghettos like Sadr City (formerly Saddam city).
    • Kizilbash, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Stop pretending you know what the ***** you are talking about. There is ethnic cleansing now because of the force de-Baathification by the US, because the US from the start sided with the Shi'ites and especially because the US didn't do a goddam thing to stop it. Those troops are useless if a civil war goes on under their very noses.
  • fddp2754, on 03/18/2008, -1/+12I hear things like: "The war is not as important in the voters' minds now. They think its going pretty well. It's now the economy." Well, guess what? The war is "going well" because it's not going on over here. We have destroyed Iraq. If you still think George Bush and Dick Cheney give a damn about the Iraqi people, you're all delusional. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves as a nation for letting this issue go. What America did was MORALLY wrong, and that has not one damned thing to do with religion. It's about character, which we are now lacking under the Bush regime. Oh, and one more thing: Yes, it's the economy STUPID. It's this freakin' war sucking up $12 billion a month and the huge tax cuts Bush gave to the rich that would normally pay for this little foray. It's not just about the sub-prime thing. That's what they want you to believe. I don't understand how people can separate the war and the economy. It's a no-brainer.
    • ronaldinho, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Because half the nation is either uneducated or too dumb to make that vital connection? We get out of Iraq and we save ourselves a bunch of money. My senators in Massachusetts are doing their jobs, so it has to be up to the other states to push to get out of Iraq. I'm more and more convinced that we should just GTFO. If anarchy is to stay anyway even if the US is around, then we should simply leave and let it be.
    • Onetrack, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4And for anyone who wants to know what 12 billion looks like - go here.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.ir ...
      Shipped to iraq.. 12 billion cash..
      surprisingly ' lost '
      no-one cares.
  • silentboom, on 03/18/2008, -1/+7Spreading peace through war is like spreading virginity with a penis.
  • NelsonR, on 03/18/2008, -2/+2A civil war on hold. Iraqi John says stay 100 years since he knows that when we leave the inevitable blood path bath Bush put in place will occur. Yet our leaders stay and put off what will be. Sort of reminds us all of the Fed bailing out Banks, lowering interest rates and continuing on the road of destruction rather then face the issues now. America should never put another Republican into office until they return to their roots but for now they are morons sinking us internally and externally.
  • anonimuso, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3Why would we allow this? This is just another Bush Administration ploy to steal Iraqi oil. We should tear down those walls and FORCE those people to reintegrate. Who cares whether they like each other or whether they will start slaughtering each other. All we care about is making sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to die.
    Lower death rate? Pfft...
    You people are such retards.
    • saigumi, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1I can't wait til next year when that vomit excuse can finally go away.

      Q: "So, why are we still in Iraq?"
      A: "Uh.... Bush Administration ploy?"
      Q: "But, Obama is in the White House and has no ties to big oil and Democrats control the house and senate..."
      A: "Uh.... you just hate Clinton because he got a BJ."
  • alphonseragusa, on 03/18/2008, -6/+4The surge is working.
    • nycmac247, on 03/18/2008, -1/+4HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
      good one. It's just around the corner...almost there... (keep repeating for another 50 years as the US economy is run into the ground and China owns us even more)
  • nycmac247, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2We'll run out of troops later this year. Then we'll either pull out or have a draft - not even Blackwater and their buddies could provide enough troops.

    Interesting that the current wars, in terms of spending curves, parallels adjustable rate mortgages, isn't it... except our gov't _in our name_ signed the deal.

    Soon, it will be time to pay, sad to say
  • siamesedream, on 03/18/2008, -10/+1Retarded article based on illogical opinion.

    Simply rediculous.
    • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Learn how to spell "ridiculous" and you won't look so ignorant.
      • siamesedream, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0Haha, the classic "I'm incapable of rationality and argumentation, so I'll attack either grammar or spelling" schtick.

        How's that workin' for you, bro? Not at all? Keep on truckin', bro, lmfao.
    • Feralvision, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Retarded comment based on illogical political viewpoint.
      • siamesedream, on 03/25/2008, -1/+0lol, because you, a complete moron, says so?

        Sorry, bro. Apparently you've not yet learned that your opinions are as worthless as you, yourself, are.
    • Firgof, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Illogical? Try factual. Want to see my sources? >:D
      • siamesedream, on 03/25/2008, -1/+0Actually, yes I would. Then, I would like to see the logic used the draw the conclusions based off of those "facts", you imbecilic *****.
      • Firgof, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Excellent. Though I would prefer you do not call me an 'imbecilic *****' if you truly want an intellectual discourse. Or any discourse at all.

        Here's two to start us off. If you want to continue after these, then so be it. Oh, and for future reference: I oft let my sources speak for themselves when able to present them.

        "Civilian Life in Iraq 'ever worsening'", Red Cross Website, credit: CBC News. 2007, April 11.
        "Iraqi civilians are forced to endure "unbearable and unacceptable" suffering in daily life in an "ever-worsening" humanitarian crisis, a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross said Wednesday. The ICRC said it released the report because the international community has grown accustomed to hearing about the number of dead in Iraq and is becoming desensitized to the human face of the crisis. [...]

        Remaining neutral, the report doesn't point fingers at any group specifically for directly causing the worsening conditions. But it does say no one has done enough to protect ordinary Iraqis' lives. [...] The report also acknowledges that security in some areas of Iraq has improved as a result of stepped-up efforts by U.S.-led multinational forces. But the central region, including Baghdad, remains greatly affected, despite American efforts to secure the capital.

        The number of civilians being forced to flee their homes has increased significantly since the February 2006 bombing of the sacred Shia shrine of Samarra and the subsequent increase in violence, the report said. "Thousands of Iraqis continue to be forced out of their homes owing to military operations, general poor security and the destruction of houses," it said. Iraqi officials informed the Red Cross that more than half of Iraq's registered doctors have fled the country just as the daily violence has stretched the health-care system to the breaking point, the ICRC's Nada Doumani told CBC News Wednesday in an interview from Jordan.

        Andrew White, the Anglican vicar of Baghdad, said he agrees with the report's findings and wants to see a reduction in violence, as well the restoration of basic services such as water, electricity and food.

        "What we see on our television screens does not demonstrate even one per cent of the reality of the atrocity of Iraq today," he told CBC News Wednesday."

        (Source: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/11/redcross- ...

        "WFP food distributions begin for Afghans hit by high food prices", World Food Programme Website. Article from 6 March 2008.
        "The World Food Programme has begun providing emergency food assistance to millions of Afghans who can no longer afford to buy wheat and wheat flour, staples of the Afghan diet. WFP distributions in rural, urban and semi-urban areas were due to start this week. [...] "Between now and mid-year, WFP aims to reach 2.5 million people in both urban and rural areas of Afghanistan. They urgently need food to help them overcome increases in wheat prices that have exceeded 70 percent over the past 12 months," said Rick Corsino, WFP's Country Director in Afghanistan."
        (Source: http://www.wfp.org/english/?ModuleID=137&Key=2787)
      • siamesedream, on 03/31/2008, -1/+0lol.

        You really are this retarded, aren't you? Sorry, bub, the ability to read is not the same as the ability to comprehend, and the ability to read and/or comprehend is not the same as the ability to reason. You posted a few tidbits of information, but that had nothing to do with the point of the article nor how it was that those pieces of information were being received and processed by the readers.

        I could give you a bunch of statistics about minorities and then attempt to use them as evidence in favor of a racist ideology. However, those statistics stand alone and absolutely do not grant proof to racist ideologies.

        Draw the parallel.
        • Firgof, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Sure. The parallel is thus:

          My information corollates, reinforces, references, is referenced, and supports not just the information presented in the article but to many of the arguments in the article it lends factual credibility. And I could throw dozens of statistics about homeless people in the United States, exactly how inefficient and useless the Poverty line is in the United States, or provide you examples demonstrating acts in Texas which, compared to the rest of the world, are quite backwards. And it would be proof. Do you know why this is? If not, perhaps you should look into Sociology and learn a few things about how correlative social data which has been randomly sampled and blindly administered provides not only a reliable picture but a stable and duplicatable platform upon which arguments and conclusions can be drawn.

          Regarding the ability to read and comprehend, siamesedream: You should invest in reinforcing those abilities. If you cannot even draw a solid line where I have put hashes (as I do not wish to spend eight hours plundering information for you to provide a cohesive and stable fabric undeniable in its solidity) then perhaps you should step back, look into this matter further, and return here when you're a bit more worldly.

          And this "You really are this retarded" is no way to address someone who you're attempting to have a conversation with. Who taught you your manners? A politician?
  • zaptoman, on 03/18/2008, -4/+1Buried as inaccurate.
    • Kizilbash, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1Buried in the sand, my head.
      Buried up my ass, my head.
      That's what you mean.
  • electrocuting, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3FREE IRAQ!
  • lichmicro, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1Ron Paul

    im nostalgic
  • kojaa, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3there are sunni and shiite all over the arab world they dont have to fight each other,
    im a sunni muslim I live in jordan and I have many shiite friends that live perfectly ok here.
  • bbqsalad, on 03/18/2008, -3/+1*****
  • dustbunny52, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5Interesting? Why is there a disclaimer on every article that even hints that the Bush administration might have gotten it wrong? Do you suppose that it is someones job at the White House to go through these articles on a regular basis to tag anything remotely anti-Bush? What a waste of taxpayer money.
  • Kizilbash, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4The 'Bury as inaccurate' option on Digg is a total joke by now.
    • amoro99, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1How can an opinion be inaccurate? Are diggers saying the author didn't write this?
  • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1I'm convinced that there are people watching the sites that start to garner huge traffic and counter anything anti-Bush. They watch the Internet intensively, as we know. Remember 641A!
  • digindrivefast, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I'm confused about which parts of this article are cited as inaccurate? Baby girl is in the sandbox and it's a mess everywhere!
  • ewas, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Almost dug, until I realized this wasn't yet another Onion article...
  • Anthonybracco, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0I think we should get out and worry about our own contry . What are we really doing besides losing more and more money and lifes. We are also in bad shape so is it fair to focus on them and not hear where we really need it . Many think bush is making a wrong descion by staying in iraq . Is it fair to the familes of loved ones in war while there at home strugleing and trying to make ends meet.
  • solid12345, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Like it or not, the Iraq war has changed the politics of the middle east, for the good or the bad. The Kurds are a potential new rising power in the region, the Lebanese have been in the streets the last few years rising up against the Syrian status quo, Iran has asserted itself on the world stage, making itself look either foolish or brave, or both.

    Either way the middle east needs change whatever the catalyst it be. The regular status quo of Arab Kings and military dictatorships can't last forever.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.