Is Iraq better or worse??

popinfresh

Am I the only person that thinks that Iraq would have been better off WITH Saddam in power . All the US had to do to improve the well-being of the Iraqi people was drop the sanctions. I know it sounds terrible, but now as opposed to Iraqis being killed for opposing Saddam, nowadays you get killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Crime has shot up and Iraq is on the verge of a deadly civil war. This prospect has always existed in Iraq, however the "evil dictator" Saddam prevented this from happening. Iraq is one of them countries/cultures where the only way to rule it is with an iron fist. Now that Iraq is being led by democratic style government the insurgents have come out, because they're no longer afraid of the government...

Bush has essentially messed with something he knew nothing about. And now Iraq is a worser place because of it. The only real benefit Iraq has seen because of the invasion is the fact that the sanctions (that were imposed by America) have now been lifted

m1ke

Maybe it isn't better off in the short term.... but hopefully it will be better off in the long term. If Iraq is a stable democracy in ten years then perhaps it will all have been worth it?

popinfresh

Is that possible though

At the moment, there are at least 3 cultures in Iraq that want independence from each other. Given the fact that insurgents are common these days in Iraq, I don't think this issue will be resolved anytime in the next 10 years.

Sleepy

Surely then the three cultures can be seperated into three seperate democratic countries? Would this not be the wisest course of action?

popinfresh

Yeah but the US has said it wants to see a "United Iraq". It would be the smarer thing to do but that's not what Bush usually supports now is it :rolleyes:

AmenToThat

Sleepy wrote:

Surely then the three cultures can be seperated into three seperate democratic countries? Would this not be the wisest course of action?

That whole area is like a maze..........
The Shia in the south stretch down into Kuwait and northern Suadi (where they are very heavily repressed by the Saudi (Sunni) regime.

The Sunni in the middle stretches out into the desert and into Saudi proper. as well as parts of Syria that boarder the Sunni region.

The Kurds in the north are part of a block that takes in parts of Iran, Syria and Turkey.

If the country does break up there will certainly be no democratic republic in the Sunni region it will be nothing more than series of city states run by which ever insurgency group is strongest in that region and will, given its geographical position within the region be a very destabalizing on the countries around it.

The Kurds are demanding almost complete autonamy anyways so although technically they will be part of Iraq for all intents and purposes they will be running their own affairs within a wider Iraq (apparently).
The real problem will be trying to get the 'Sunni triangle' region to accept less autonomy than the Kurds, I mean why should they accept anything less?

tomsie100

First of all i dont know everything so could be wrong.
To me this kinda looks like a yugulslavia (spelt wrong) again.
A nation once held together by a dictator.
Dictator gone free for all and real nastyness on all sides.
I think the only hope if there is fair media that shows war as horrible.
When i look at the channel 4 news at 7:00 and it shows several and i mean 8 or 9 major bomings a day it looks kinda like a civil war.
Does every country have to learn the hard way about civil war and seeing other races as inferior as being bad.
just a few ideas.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote:

Surely then the three cultures can be seperated into three seperate democratic countries? Would this not be the wisest course of action?

There are no clear cut lines of how to carve up Iraq as huge swaths of it are multiethnic. Additionally, my understanding is that that the perceived difference between Shia and Sunni Arabs in Iraq is often exaggerated in the West.

The Kurds, on the other hand are another thing, in that they would very much want to establish a separate Kurdish state (especially as they had effectively already enjoyed years of independence from Saddam after the first War). However, the Turks would oppose any such move.

m1ke

I think it's absolutely possible to solve the issues raised. Implementing a proper federal system can provide the solution to problems of disintegration. Also anti-american feeling in iraq will hopefully work as the primary binding agent of the new federal system. As an example, Spain is currently a multi-national(Basque's,Catalans,Galicians) country with a federal system of government that got rid of its dictatorship in the early 1980s(i think?). If Iraq works out then it can provide a model democratisation.

It is very rare for stable democracies just to grow naturally, authoritarian regimes never liberalise... and even if they do, it is usually a temporary measure that is subsequently revoked(e.g Pakistan). Intervention(not necessarily military) is perhaps a good way of beginning the process of democratisation and stabilisation that can bring long term benefits for the whole world, something that is in everybodys interest.

Hobbes

popinfresh wrote:

Am I the only person that thinks that Iraq would have been better off WITH Saddam in power . All the US had to do to improve the well-being of the Iraqi people was drop the sanctions.

No and no. It wouldn't of been better with Saddam in power and dropping sanctions (which Saddam wanted) would of just helped him more.

However the actions the US have taken after the Liberation has done nothing but make matters worse.

popinfresh

But surely the sanctions could have been used as a way to control Saddam. i.e If you do X Y and Z, then we'll drop the sanctions..

Err0r

Yes, Iraq is worse off now.

But, Iraq will become much better than before, it will take time.

Balfa

Sleepy wrote:

Surely then the three cultures can be seperated into three seperate democratic countries? Would this not be the wisest course of action?

Ever heard of Israel and Palestine?

Rossonero

I'm suprised people still ask the question. What's the ratio of killings in Iraq before and after the war? There will never be peace or a stable or safe democracy there. It was more organised under saddam.

mike65

Rossonero wrote:

There will never be peace or a stable or safe democracy there. It was more organised under saddam.

Ah yes Saddam Hussein Democrat of the year 1979-2003. The oppression was much better organised under him.

Mike.

AmenToThat

The Corinthian wrote:

Additionally, my understanding is that that the perceived difference between Shia and Sunni Arabs in Iraq is often exaggerated in the West.

Cant agree with you there.
The Wahabbi sect of the Sunni religion which is very prevelent next door(Suadi) and which now seems to be taking root in Sunni areas of Iraq is very different to the Shia religion, indeed to many of the Wahabbi brand of Sunni the Shia are classed on about the same level as the Jews and many of their rituals are considered to be nothing more than pagan in nature.
Thats why they are supressed so badly in northern Saudi Arabia.

There was an article on this very subject in the New York times I believe the day before yesterday.

As for the Kurds they are actually Sunni just of more secular variety as apposed to that practiced in Saudi

popinfresh

Ah yes Saddam Hussein Democrat of the year 1979-2003. The oppression was much better organised under him.

Tbh, Leaving Saddam in power would have seemed like the lesser of two evils to me. All governments are corrupt. For some reason though the world became focused on the corruption of the Iraqi government in particular.

Sand

But surely the sanctions could have been used as a way to control Saddam. i.e If you do X Y and Z, then we'll drop the sanctions..

No - the sanctions hit the Iraqi people hardest, not Saddam who still maintained and built his palaces. Why would he give a feck?

I'm suprised people still ask the question. What's the ratio of killings in Iraq before and after the war? There will never be peace or a stable or safe democracy there. It was more organised under saddam.

People were probably saying the same thing about Ireland in the early 20s. The first thing that happened after the British withdrew was a bitter civil war. Those drunken paddies could never run a peaceful or stable democracy, could they?

Tbh, Leaving Saddam in power would have seemed like the lesser of two evils to me.

Probably because if Saddam was still in power what was going on in Iraq would be a page 43 mini story youd never read?

AmenToThat

Sand wrote:

People were probably saying the same thing about Ireland in the early 20s. The first thing that happened after the British withdrew was a bitter civil war. Those drunken paddies could never run a peaceful or stable democracy, could they?

It may have escaped your attention but the politics of Ireland still are not settled and paramilitary organizations continue to operate within this state some 80 years later! On just about every other thread on this board you have continually focused on what you perceive to be the 'threats to the Irish democracy' now your holding Ireland up as the role model?

In any case to compare Ireland of the 1920s to the reality of events on the grouns in the middle east today is like comparing apples to oranges.

Sparks

popinfresh wrote:

Am I the only person that thinks that Iraq would have been better off WITH Saddam in power

No, the Lancet study confirmed it. Lower death rates under Saddam. Ironic, huh?

Sparks

The Corinthian wrote:

The Kurds, on the other hand are another thing, in that they would very much want to establish a separate Kurdish state (especially as they had effectively already enjoyed years of independence from Saddam after the first War). However, the Turks would oppose any such move.

I'd be surprised if the other Iraqis supported it either; "Kurdistan", as proposed, has significant oilfields contained within it...

Sand

It may have escaped your attention but the politics of Ireland still are not settled and paramilitary organizations continue to operate within this state some 80 years later! On just about every other thread on this board you have continually focused on what you perceive to be the 'threats to the Irish democracy' now your holding Ireland up as the role model?

Hardly a role model, and it is beset by anti-democratic forces and the morons who vote for them. But Ireland is a peaceful and generally successful democracy. Back in the twenties, it didnt look that way - it looked liked a civil war was occuring, and the divisions raised between "free stater" and "irregulars" would never be reconcilled, that Ireland would never be a democracy, that it need the paternal hand of stern but fair Britain to guide the Celtic hotheads who were were eager to slaughter their former landlords.

I remember reading a piece where Orwell denounced commentators whose expectations of the future were nothing more than a continuation of the present. When the Nazis were winning their victory was inevitable, when the Soviets were winning theyd overrun all of Europe, blah blah ****ing blah. Back in the 80s, Japan and its corporate culture was the all singing, all dancing bussiness moguls. Where are they now? Apparently now its China that the all singing all dancing choir. Now that desperate elements of Al Queda fanatics, Sunni supremacists and assorted whackos are bombing in a desperate attempt to prevent the formation of a democratic government - God how they fear it! - we have the usual commentators coming out with " X is occuring now, so X will always occur!"

What is happening now is called change - it is inherently unstable. Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon are all in a state of flux and its not possible to say how it will turn out. Change never comes about without instability. Stability is not an absolute good. It is not something to be sought for if the status quo is not desirable. The U.S. - and the West in general - has made mistakes in the past in its foreign policy by attempting to maintain stability, trying to prop up the Shah of Iran for example. Or by propping up the House of Saud when its clear it is the cause of the general instability in the Middle East.

In any case to compare Ireland of the 1920s to the reality of events on the grouns in the middle east today is like comparing apples to oranges.

Only because it shows up your argument as being historically common, and commonly shown to be crap.

Moriarty

Sparks wrote:

No, the Lancet study confirmed it. Lower death rates under Saddam. Ironic, huh?

Death rates for a year automatically equate to a country being better or worse off?

mike65

This sort of thing does'nt help mind you...

from telegraph

George W Bush has promised to investigate the killing of an Italian security agent and the wounding of freed Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena by US forces in Iraq.

Troops at a checkpoint shot dead the agent and wounded Ms Sgrena on the road to Baghdad airport after she had been freed and handed over to three Italian security agents.

Ms Sgrena arrived back in Rome this morning, where she was taken directly to hospital for treatment for a shoulder injury.

"The agent, Nicola Calipari, covered Sgrena with his body, he was hit by a bullet which unfortunately was fatal," Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, told a news conference.

President Bush telephone Mr Berlusconi to express his regrets. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "The president assured Prime Minister Berlusconi that it would be fully investigated ... We're cooperating closely with Italian authorities."

Mr Berlusconi issued a statement saying: "The prime minister expects that, in the spirit of the particular friendship that characterises relations between Italy and the United States, the US government leaves no stone unturned to shed light on what happened and on who might be responsible."


The US Defence Department said multinational forces had fired at the car when it approached a checkpoint at high speed, discovering only later who its occupants were.

Ms Sgrena's partner said he could not blame the US soldiers for the shooting, saying they were probably "scared boys", and that the real blame lay with those who had sent them to Iraq.

Ms Sgrena's colleagues at the Communist daily Il Manifesto were holding a party to celebrate her release on Friday evening when news of the shooting reached them.

Redleslie2

These people aren't better off anyway.

04-Mar-2005
US Specialist Seth Garceau Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Tikrit (near) Non-hostile - vehicle accident
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
IT Nicola Calipari Baghdad (International Airport) Hostile - friendly fire
BUL Private Gurdi Hristov Gurdev Diwaniyah (near) [Al Qadisiyah Prov.] Hostile - hostile fire

On the other hand, Northern Ireland is indisputably a better place now than it was 40 years ago thanks to the IRA. A very modest amount of casualties too.

Sparks

Moriarty wrote:

Death rates for a year automatically equate to a country being better or worse off?

Yes. You see, since we can't predict the future with mathematical certainty, we tend to rely on the data for the present moment. Which says that as an Iraqi today, you have a higher chance of being dying (either through being killed or through disease or whatever) now than you did under Saddam. Sure, it might get better in the future. But you also might find yourself living in the middle eastern version of the DRC...

Redleslie2

Well the Iran backed shia muslim fundamentalists are doing reasonably well out of the fiasco if the election results are taken anyway seriously. 300 billion bucks blown on turning the place into a theocracy. You couldn't make it up.

Moriarty

Sparks wrote:

Yes. You see, since we can't predict the future with mathematical certainty, we tend to rely on the data for the present moment. Which says that as an Iraqi today, you have a higher chance of being dying (either through being killed or through disease or whatever) now than you did under Saddam. Sure, it might get better in the future. But you also might find yourself living in the middle eastern version of the DRC...

.. so, the UK is definitively a worse country to live in because their death rate is higher than Irelands (7.91 vs 10.19 per 1,000)?

I won't mention that Iraq is lower than both, at 5.66. Oops!

popinfresh

Iraqis now have more reason to live in fear than they did with Saddam. the notion that the day to day lives of the Iraqi people would be made better by instaling a different government was a simple minded notion. All Bush had to do to improve the lives of the iraqis was drop the sanction. Iraq with no sanctions and Saddam would have been better than Iraq with no sanctions without Saddam. The US fcuked up. It's that simple. Or at least their propeganda reasons for invasion are now proving to be bullsh1t

AmenToThat

Sand wrote:

Only because it shows up your argument as being historically common, and commonly shown to be crap.

I have no idea what argument your trying to make here and would welcome a more complete explanation.

Redleslie2

mike65 wrote:

This sort of thing does'nt help mind you..

Failing to take opportunities to murder anti-war commie journalists doesn't help your side much no.

"We were hit by a spray of fire," she told the television network. "I was talking to Nicola ... when he leaned over me, probably to defend me, and then he slumped over. That was a truly terrible thing."

Pier Scolari, the journalist's boyfriend, said she told him: "The most difficult moment was when I saw the person who had saved me die in my arms," according to the ANSA news agency.

[Scolari told Sky Italia TV: "I have said so many times, war is madness. Probably it was scared boys who fired, it wasn't their fault, it was the fault of those that sent them there." Scolari also said the shootout took place 700 meters from the airport, after they had already passed other road blocks. At a press conference he said: "Giuliana and the other people who were there told me that the American attack was completely unjustified. [b]They had alerted the whole chain of command, the Italian troops were awaiting them at the airport. And yet, they fired 300, 400 rounds. Why?"][/b]

Source.

That agent who died protecting her is a bloody hero.

Flukey

It is a bit rich that George Bush is calling for a total withdrawal by Syria from Lebanon before elections are held there while the allied troops are firmly ensconced in Iraq.

Sand

I have no idea what argument your trying to make here and would welcome a more complete explanation.

Im making an argument against the common idea that because Iraq hasnt gone from opressive dictatorship to Jeffersonian democracy in a blink of an eye that it never will, that because bombs are going off now, that they always will - and against perhaps the most ridiculous idea that Arabs cant do democracy and needed a Saddam Hussein to keep law and order.

Irelands birth was greeted with an immediate and bitter civil war, mutinies in the army, economic depression and a falling out with out most important trade partner and neighbour, all of which supported the common view that the hotheaded celtic Irish couldnt run a successful democracy, and whilst British rule mightnt have been all smiles and sunshine, it was a damn sight better than the civil war and paramilitaries roaming the land. Does this view remind you of any views on this thread?

Change is never stable, it doesnt follow a timetable and its rarely polite. The status quo in Ireland wasnt acceptable and change was required and was achieved. The status quo in Iraq was even less acceptable, change was required and it is being achieved. That doesnt mean a liberal democracy is guaranteed, but Iraq and the Iraqi have the potential to build a liberal democracy now.

People should stop trying to predict the future by looking at the present. Journalists make that mistake all the time - they give too much weight to the present, always trying to say how this event will affect the future without knowing if indeed it will be anything more than a footnote in history. The doomsayers should rein in their messages of doom, theyll look less foolish in the end.

Sparks

Sand wrote:

all of which supported the common view that the hotheaded celtic Irish couldnt run a successful democracy, and whilst British rule mightnt have been all smiles and sunshine, it was a damn sight better than the civil war and paramilitaries roaming the land.

A view which had solid economic backing right up to the early '90s, as I recall. Even today, N.Ireland has a better standard in terms of medical costs, food costs, infrastructure and so on, because of the amount of money pumped into it by the UK - so there's an economic argument that had we not fought for independence we'd be better off today.

The status quo in Ireland wasnt acceptable

To a minority of revolutionaries. I don't recall a referendum on the matter, and I do note the historical record of the popular reaction to Pearse's rising in 1916 - people spitting on him in the streets, local authorities nationwide calling for his public execution and so on. Home Rule was what was being sought, not revolution, don't forget.

People should stop trying to predict the future by looking at the present.

And yet, that's precisely what your entire post was doing, albiet indirectly.

.. so, the UK is definitively a worse country to live in because their death rate is higher than Irelands (7.91 vs 10.19 per 1,000)?
I won't mention that Iraq is lower than both, at 5.66. Oops!

I'm not sure where you're getting the 5.66 figure from. The Lancet tally came to 98,000 deaths through violence since the invasion. A quick summary of the Lancet report:

“The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98 000 more deaths than expected (8000-194 000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8.1-419) than in the period before the war.”

So after the invasion, you were FIFTY-EIGHT times more likely to be killed violently than before the invasion. Off-hand, I'd say that's an indicator that Iraq now is not better off than Iraq under Sadaam, and as you yourself said Sand, people shouldn't predict the future as they don't know how to do so...

Redleslie2

Redleslie2 wrote:

That agent who died protecting her is a bloody hero.

you know,I thought that killing was a disgracefull incident
But I fail to see where the conclusion can be drawn that the soldiers that fired on that car were targeting the italians-they didnt know-they made a horrible mistake and one of many except in this case an even bigger one from a pr point of view given who was killed.
This looks to me like an indirect sucess for the insurgents in that they've carbombed and suicide bombed enough Iraqi and coalition check points at this stage to make those manning them very warey and very trigger happy when an unknown car comes up to them.

sovtek

Flukey wrote:

It is a bit rich that George Bush is calling for a total withdrawal by Syria from Lebanon before elections are held there while the allied troops are firmly ensconced in Iraq.

How (Karl) Rovian it is to publicly decry your enemy for the doing the same damn thing you are.
Ask Ann Richards.

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

This looks to me like an indirect sucess for the insurgents in that they've carbombed and suicide bombed enough Iraqi and coalition check points at this stage to make those manning them very warey and very trigger happy when an unknown car comes up to them.

Oh yes blame the insurgents for trigger happy grunts.
If you recall 2-15 Iraqi civilians (per day) were being killed by US soldiers on the ground BEFORE there were any insurgents.
Remember...trigger happy soldiers first....popular resistance and suicide bombs....later.
Hence the root of the problem.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Oh yes blame the insurgents for trigger happy grunts.
If you recall 2-15 Iraqi civilians (per day) were being killed by US soldiers on the ground BEFORE there were any insurgents.
Remember...trigger happy soldiers first....popular resistance and suicide bombs....later.
Hence the root of the problem.

Oh I'm not denying that they were trigger happy before, they clearly were, they're just trigger crazy now,how many did that last suicide bomb kill again,over a hundred?How many of the dead were Iraqi's?
Like I was just pointing out the obvious,they didnt shout kill that italian scum or anything when they were fireing, they just made their now understandable but undeniably wreckless triggerhappy choice first and asked questions later.

SkepticOne

Are the Iraqis better off? Not really important to me. I never believed that the war fundamentally was about improving the lot of the Iraqis but rather that it was about securing a source of cheap oil. In this the Americans have largely failed.

If the Americans sat down and really thought about their interests logically the war would probably not have happened. Instead they were influenced by ideologically driven Neoconservatives who were obsessed with Iraq. They were also misled by exiled Iraqis who told them that there would be flowers thown at them by the multitude when they invaded. Of course Saddam was hated by most Iraqis but the Americans did not take into consideration how ground down by fear the majority was. They also did not take into consideration that there were substantial groups who did very well indeed under Saddam despite the suffering of the majority and who stood to lose by any form of change, particularly democratic change. It was not, after all, popularity that that got these groups into their comfortable position in the first place but intimidation. The Americans did not fully take into consideration that these groups, knowing nothing else, would continue such with tactics in an attempt to regain their former privilaged positions.

I did not particularly care about the Iraqis before the war so I don't see any real reason to care about them now but I think they would probably be worse off if Saddam and his psychopathic sons continued in power. It may be worse at this particular point in time but there is at least a possibility of something better though the Americans are not doing enough to deal with the former Baathists, fanatics and common criminals that make up the insurgency. Iraq can only proceed with something better when these elements are properly dealt with.

Sand

A view which had solid economic backing right up to the early '90s, as I recall. Even today, N.Ireland has a better standard in terms of medical costs, food costs, infrastructure and so on, because of the amount of money pumped into it by the UK - so there's an economic argument that had we not fought for independence we'd be better off today.

Bad economic government wasnt/isnt a state of affairs unique to Ireland. Socialist views were widespread and it took a lot of time for them to be wholly discredited and for government to stop treating business as some sort of enemy which much be taxed into the ground for the crime of generating employment and investment out of their control.

To a minority of revolutionaries. I don't recall a referendum on the matter, and I do note the historical record of the popular reaction to Pearse's rising in 1916 - people spitting on him in the streets, local authorities nationwide calling for his public execution and so on. Home Rule was what was being sought, not revolution, don't forget.

And by 1918 it was unnacceptable to the majority of voters as exspressed by who they elected..... See what I mean about dont predict the future as simply being a continuation of the present?

And yet, that's precisely what your entire post was doing, albiet indirectly.

How? Am I the one predicting that Iraq will never have a peaceful stable democracy because its currently fighting insurgents now?

I dont know how Iraq will turn out. Ill tell you one thing, in 10 years, it wont be the same as it is now. Im hopeful because theyve agreed a basic constitution, theyve held elections that were far more successful than the doomsayers predicted, the Sunni political leaders have decided to come in from the cold and the Kurds and the Shias seem ready to accept that, theres noises that the more secular insurgent factions are looking for a political settlement with the Iraqi government and the insurgency, whilst it is currently fighting hard, cannot sustain itself forever. The potential for an Iraqi democracy is there, but its up the Iraqis themselves more than anyone what they do with that potential. And yes, that means Iraq is better off now than it was under Saddam when that wasnt even slightly possible.

Sand

they just made their now understandable but undeniably wreckless triggerhappy choice first and asked questions later.

From my understanding of what happened, the reckless decision was the one to drive hell for leather at a checkpoint. Soliders tend to assume some car racing at them instead of slowing down is a threat, especially when the enemy uses a lot of suicide car bombers.

Moriarty

Sparks wrote:

I'm not sure where you're getting the 5.66 figure from. The Lancet tally came to 98,000 deaths through violence since the invasion. A quick summary of the Lancet report:

So after the invasion, you were FIFTY-EIGHT times more likely to be killed violently than before the invasion. Off-hand, I'd say that's an indicator that Iraq now is not better off than Iraq under Sadaam, and as you yourself said Sand, people shouldn't predict the future as they don't know how to do so...

Irish, British, Iraqi. If you can find an offical rate for 2004 that disagrees with those figures, I'd like to see too.

Irish people were stastically a number of times more likely to be killed in terrorist attacks in 1974 when Dublin and Monaghan were bombed. Reaching conclusions on long-term sucess or failure based on such snapshot statistics is flawed.

My understanding of what happened to the Italians was that a US patrol on the airport road weren't told to expect a car driving at high speed to the airport, even though US command in the area had told the Italians that everyone was informed. It sounds like a communications fúckup that cost one person their life and got another one fairly seriously injured.

Redleslie2

Earthman wrote:

you know,I thought that killing was a disgracefull incident
But I fail to see where the conclusion can be drawn that the soldiers that fired on that car were targeting the italians-they didnt know-they made a horrible mistake and one of many except in this case an even bigger one from a pr point of view given who was killed.
This looks to me like an indirect sucess for the insurgents in that they've carbombed and suicide bombed enough Iraqi and coalition check points at this stage to make those manning them very warey and very trigger happy when an unknown car comes up to them.

During the burst of gunfire that killed him and left her with wounds to a lung, the 56-year-old correspondent said a warning from her kidnappers that the Americans would try to kill her came back to haunt her.

"I immediately thought of what my kidnappers had told me. They said they were committed to releasing me, but that I had to be careful 'because there are Americans who don't want you to go back'," she wrote.

"Nicola Calipari was seated at my side. The driver had spoken twice to the embassy and to Italy that we were on our way to the airport that I knew was saturated with American troops, we were less than a kilometre they told me... ... when... I remember there was shooting."

I wouldn't be surprised if the soldiers on the ground were fed some false information so that a convenient accident could occur.

Moriarty

lmfao

Yeah, whatever redleslie.

Redleslie2

On the other hand, the benefits of having her murdered could easily be outweighed by a hostile reaction by the Italian public and government.

Redleslie2

Wounded journalist suggests she was targeted

Lmao? I'll take Ms.Sgrena's analysis of the incident a little bit more seriously than some anonymous interweb adolescent's anyday.

Moriarty

But of course you would, that's what makes it all so funny.

Redleslie2

Man dies performing act of heroism. Hilarious isn't it everyone.

Moriarty

No, the hilarious part is the dreaming up of a vast conspiracy to shoot dead some random journalist you no doubt have a soft spot for just because she fights the power writing for her communist journal. IT'S ALL PART OF THE GLOBAL CONSPIRACY TO KEEP LEFTIST THINKING DOWN DAMNIT, CAN'T YOU READ BETWEEN THE FRIKIN LINES!?

That's the funny part. That yourself, and people like you, will use anything to further your political cause.

That she was injured and a man killed is the sad and unfortunate reality.

bonkey

Could you two stop the bickering please?

The Corinthian

Moriarty wrote:

No, the hilarious part is the dreaming up of a vast conspiracy to shoot dead some random journalist you no doubt have a soft spot for just because she fights the power writing for her communist journal.

Sgrena’s own credentials are from Italy’s looney left so her account of what occurred should have taken with some level of cynicism. After all, killing her on the way to the airport would have been politically the worst thing the Americans could have done if all they were attempting to do was discourage the practice of negotiating with insurgents. If they were going to do that, they should have done so prior to her release into Italian hands.

Of course it may still be part of a conspiracy and there may also be information that we are not yet privy to, but that’s unlikely. Chances are it was simply another in a long line of screw-ups on the part of some trigger-happy eighteen-year-old redneck marines - except this time they shot a white guy, so we all got to hear about it.

Or as Napoleon Bonaparte once said; "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."