Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (158089)	2/15/2005 3:27:11 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

"It looks more and more like things are out of our hands and that the "nation" that's being built will ultimately be a threat to us and an ally of nations that are opposed to our goals." Yes out of our hands going forward, no doubt. But where do you get to them being an enemy. In order for shiaa to lead new iraq they will need cooperation on non-zarquawi and non-baath sunnis, not to mention the kurds. This is the road they are on. Remember sistani lived in iran. You think he digs the mullocracy? No reason to believe that at all. Only way things fall badly is if the insurgency cant be ended or at least subdued in a reasonable time frame or if shiaa go for broke as you suggest and thus cause the three way split. Worse case there is Iran#2 (again no certainty that even rump shiaa state will = rule by mullahs), Triangle civil war andCivil war at points of contact between shiaa and sunni (badgad and sunni and kurd (mosul, perhaps kirkuk). Certainly Kurdistan will exist free in a three way split. Dont be so down. I am worried, but it is not hopeless and i still believe US timeline to iraqis will help not hurt developing situation. mike

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (158089)	2/15/2005 11:22:26 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Anyone think we may have killed a few innocent Iraqis...? _____________________________________ Study puts civilian toll in Iraq at over 100,000 By Elisabeth Rosenthal International Herald Tribune Saturday, October 30, 2004 iht.com <<...More than 100,000 civilians have probably died as direct or indirect consequences of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to a study by a research team at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. . The report was published on the Internet by The Lancet, the British medical journal. The figure is far higher than previous mortality estimates. Editors of the journal decided not to wait for The Lancet's normal publication date next week, but instead to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the U.S. presidential election. . The finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since the Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands. . In the study, teams of researchers fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 previously selected locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion. . Although the paper's authors acknowledge that thorough data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect are extensive: Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it. Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes. . "We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins study team. He said the team had excluded deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, since that city was the site of unusually intense violence. . In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in the family since the conflict started in March 2003. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by coalition forces - mostly airstrikes - and most of the reported deaths were of women and children. . The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers found. . "The fact that more than half of the deaths caused by the occupation forces were women and children is a cause for concern," the authors wrote. . The team included researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies as well as doctors from Al Mustansiriya University Medical School in Baghdad. . There is bound to be skepticism about the estimate of 100,000 excess deaths, which translates into an average of 166 excess deaths a day since the invasion. But some were not surprised. . "I am emotionally shocked, but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," said Scott Lipscomb, an associate professor at Northwestern University. . Lipscomb works on a Web site called www.iraqbodycount.net. That project, which collates only media-reported deaths, currently puts the death toll at just under 17,000. "We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," Lipscomb said...>>

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (158089)	2/16/2005 3:52:48 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Now let's take a look at Iraq. In Iraq we have been FORCED, by the cleric Sistani and the Sunni insurgents, to ALLOW a vote that will likely empower the very people we have previously labeled as dangerous and radical Don't tell me, let me guess... you got that from Juan Cole, didn't you? 60% of Iraqis just braved death threats to vote for the first time in their lives, dancing at the poll sites, immensely proud of themselves, and Prof. Cole & the rest of the left have got to find a way to rain on the parade. So now he claims it doesn't count because Bush was FORCED into it. Nonsense. The CPA, and then afterwards Negroponte & Allawi, have been hammering out a series of compromises, trying to rebuild politics in a place that had known only terror for 35 years. Of course there were arguments about this and that. But nobody FORCED Bush to hold elections, as if it had been Bush's original intention to install a proconsul and never hold elections! It was a question of how and when and which way to start, and of course the Americans listened to Sistani and the Hawza, they are some of the most influential people in Iraq. Nor were Sistani & et al. EVER "labeled as dangerous and radical". Far from it! Sistani is not al Sadr, in fact Sistani brought al Sadr to heel; Sadr City and Najaf are perfectly quiet now. For al Sadr to be coopted into the political process, but with only 3 seats, is a good outcome. This new meme that the Democrats are pushing, that the elections were a failure because the Shiites are really theocrats, is a lot of hooey that nobody who knows Iraq will sign onto. Doesn't mean things will go swimmingly. But this bugbear won't materialize. Just wait and see, and keep track of who made which predictions, and who has the better track record.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (158089)	2/16/2005 8:57:13 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Another worry i have buys into opposition to the war but it just may be reality at this point. How do we leave if the triangle is not pacified. At the time we pull out if the terrorists are strong enough to make a run at controlling the triangle they then become the new quaeda (base) for attacks on the West. I dont think at this point while this territory is being contested this is the case, but unless we hang around long enough for the good iraqis to at least have a chance of pacifying the triangle, we may be making a mistake of monumental proportions if we leave to early. I think the signal i propose we give to iraq of our intent to leave along with a timetable is a good thing to get them going in the fight against the terrorists. I dont know how to reconcile the two. If you will answer this post, please lets not go over the history of the existing situation. I have said all along that if i knew then what i knew now, the realist in me most probably would have looked at other means to handle saddam and/or would certainly have used different methods in the liberation which became an occupation. Thats all water under the bridge now. Time to find common ground between reasonable people who can deal with current reality unlike guys like scott who will only bash bush or guys like lindy bill who now claim they still are waiting for the flowers. MIke