Iraq war into 6th year, same old story...

[Rome]

Now Dio, arming insurgents is always a goooood idea, especially insurgents who were killing our personnel not more than six months ago.

PS: Love the summary execution too.  No messy trial or adherence to the rule of law... just cap the motherfarger after you make a joke.  Hell, it's the American way!

[Phanatic]

Trading one set of problems for another....

[Drunkmasterflex]

A never ending circle.

[Diomedes]

There are a lot of good things happening in Iraq...

Civilian casualties drop 36% in June

Casualties may have dropped, but daily attacks have increased, according to the Pentagon's own figures:

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?rpc=401&storyId=N20416437

EXCLUSIVE-Daily attacks in Iraq hit new high in June
Fri 20 Jul 2007 22:12:58 BST

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) - Attacks in Iraq last month reached their highest daily average since May 2003, showing a surge in violence as President George W. Bush completed a buildup of U.S. troops, Pentagon statistics show.

The data, obtained by Reuters from the Defense Department, showed an upward trend in daily attacks over the past four months, when U.S. and Iraqi forces were ramping up operations against insurgents and militants, including al Qaeda, in Iraq.

Pentagon officials were not immediately available to comment on the statistics.

The June numbers showed 5,335 attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces, civilians and infrastructure.

June's total was 2.5 percent below an October 2006 peak of 5,472 attacks and slightly lower than the 5,365 attacks in May.

But because June has only 30 days, the average daily number of attacks was 177.8, higher than the 176.5 last October and 173.1 in May.

The Pentagon statistics, which come as pressure mounts in the U.S. Congress for a troop withdrawal from Iraq, depicted the most intensive month for daily attacks since Bush declared major combat operations at an end in May 2003.

Daily attacks rose as the Bush administration moved the last combat battalions into place for a security clampdown in Baghdad, part of a controversial U.S. strategy to stabilize Iraq with an additional 28,000 troops.

Bush and other senior officials have predicted that a rise in violence from insurgents and al Qaeda in Iraq would occur this summer as the so-called "surge" strategy takes hold.

A crucial report expected in September from U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, could force a change in U.S. policy if it suggests the strategy is not working.

U.S. military commanders have sought to paint a more upbeat picture of events on the ground while pleading for additional time to determine whether the Bush strategy can succeed.

The statistics showed the 177.8 attacks per day in June were above the 157.5 in March, the lowest daily average for any month in 2007. Total monthly attack figures have also climbed to well over 5,000 from a low in February of 4,561.

Attacks last month were up 46 percent from a year earlier, with the statistics showing 3,642 attacks or 121.4 per day on average in June 2006.

The June 2007 statistics confirmed a significant decline in the targeting of Iraqi civilians, with such attacks falling 18 percent to 763 from a 2007 high of 932 in May.

Attacks on Iraqi security forces fell to 889 in June from 987 in May, while attacks on coalition forces rose about 7 percent to 3,671 from 3,423.



So I guess your good news is that lethality is down a smidge even as frequency of attack is up?  You call that good things happening?

[Diomedes]

Or maybe this is your idea of good things happening in Iraq?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22109346-5001028,00.html

A US Marine convicted of plotting to murder an Iraqi civilian outside Baghdad last year escaped a jail sentence for his crimes, the military said.
Trent Thomas, who was found guilty of conspiracy to kidnap and murder Hashim Ibrahim Awad in Hamdania on April 26 last year, hugged his family after receiving a reduction in rank and bad conduct discharge....

Aww...the murderer got a hug.

[rjs246]

I have a question for the guys here in the services. Many of you joined up before this particular war was going on but when you join up you certainly know that going to war is always a possibility, and in fact would be part of your job description. Knowing this, why did you sign up initially? To serve your country in some way? To get money for school? Not sure what else to do with your free time? It seems that none of you wants to go into battle, but you've chosen to go into a line of work where that is exactly what you are trained to do So what's the motivation?

[Diomedes]

This ought to be good. 

[rjs246]

I'm not really interested in Dio's commentary and I'm not trying to be condescending. I have friends and close relations in the service and their reasons vary pretty broadly but very few of them want to go into battle which seems curious to me since they chose to go into the profession of military defense (or offense, depending on how you look at it and who's in charge).

[ice grillin you]

do you have a black friend too?

[rjs246]

You're obsession with race is adorable and all, but try to stay on topic.

[Diomedes]

Now that U.S. failure in Iraq is obvious even to American Idol citizens,  Bush Co. decide that the UN should be brought in.  Wouldn't it be nice to see the U.N. say, 'farg you Cowboy.  This is your shteinfest, you started it, you deal with it.'  But they can't afford to do that, the disaster is too large to ignore.  Still, here's to hoping they rub his face in shtein before they agree to do anything the U.S. asks.



http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2030651920070720?feedType=RSS

Under pressure on Iraq, U.S. makes overtures to U.N.
Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:27PM EDT

By Claudia Parsons

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Under pressure to start withdrawing U.S. troops, the Bush administration wants the United Nations to play an expanded role in Iraq as a mediator both internally and with neighboring countries.

Zalmay Khalilzad, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq who now represents Washington at the United Nations, wrote in an opinion piece in The New York Times on Friday that the world body could "help internationalize the effort to stabilize the country."

"While reasonable people can differ on whether the coalition should have intervened against Saddam Hussein's regime, it is clear at this point that the future of Iraq will have a profound effect on the region and, in turn, on peace and stability in the world," Khalilzad wrote.

The U.S. overtures to the United Nations come as Bush and his generals appealed for more time to allow a surge in troop levels to bring stability to Iraq. The Democratic-led Congress has been pushing for a timetable to start withdrawing troops.

The United Nations has been deeply reluctant to work in Iraq since 23 of its top people were killed by a bomb at its Baghdad headquarters in August 2003.

But new U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, a former South Korean foreign minister, met U.S. President George W. Bush this week and promised U.N. help with rebuilding Iraq.

Khalilzad said Washington endorsed Ban's call for an expanded U.N. role. "The United Nations possesses certain comparative advantages for undertaking complex internal and regional mediation efforts," he said.

His remarks were in sharp contrast to the war of words between Washington and the United Nations in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion and in the years since then. Ban's predecessor Kofi Annan said later the invasion was "illegal."

NEW ENVOY

Khalilzad noted that a new U.N. envoy for Iraq would be appointed in the coming weeks. "With the right envoy and mandate (the United Nations) is the best vehicle to address the two fundamental issues driving the crisis in Iraq," he said.

First, on the domestic side: "In the role of mediator, it has inherent legitimacy and the flexibility to talk to all parties, including elements outside the political process."

"Second, the United Nations is also uniquely suited to work out a regional framework to stabilize Iraq," he said.

"Several of Iraq's neighbors -- not only Syria and Iran but also some friends of the United States -- are pursuing destabilizing policies," he said. "The United States supports a new mandate that creates a United Nations-led multilateral diplomatic process to contain the regional competition that is adding fuel to the fire of Iraq's internal conflict."

Iraq has expressed concern about a major Turkish troop buildup on its northern border which Ankara, a NATO ally of Washington, has said comes in response to its concerns over Kurdish rebels from Turkey based over the border in Iraq.

There are also suspicions that several countries in the region, including Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, are funding parties in the sectarian conflict between Sunni Arabs and Shi'ites that has killed tens of thousands of people.

The United Nations is already involved in the International Compact with Iraq, a partnership with Baghdad and the international community involving debt relief and other economic support. In May, Ban held a meeting with 60 nations, including Iraq's key debtors, in Sharm al-Sheikh.

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

[Drunkmasterflex]

I have a question for the guys here in the services. Many of you joined up before this particular war was going on but when you join up you certainly know that going to war is always a possibility, and in fact would be part of your job description. Knowing this, why did you sign up initially? To serve your country in some way? To get money for school? Not sure what else to do with your free time? It seems that none of you wants to go into battle, but you've chosen to go into a line of work where that is exactly what you are trained to do So what's the motivation?

I signed up because it was something I always wanted to do.  People always say they support the troops, well I was one of those people, but I figured there is no better way to support the troops than to join them.  Also I was offered a very nice sign up package.  Since I was a college grad, they are repaying my student loans, less the interest.  I also got a $20,000 cash bonus, as well as increased rank(E-4). 

As far as wanting to go to battle that is kind of another reason I signed up, I guess a self test of sorts.  I know some people call it crazy but that is just who I am.  I don't necessarily agree with a lot of this administrations policies, but it is my job. 

[Phanatic]

I can't comment on this war as I've been out a while but I did sign up because I was pretty idealistic as a 19 year old. I bought into the fight for freedom thing. The college money was an added bonus but I also wanted a career. Even though I don't work in my rate I wouldn't be where I am now without it. I think my military on the job training thing was better then any college I could have taken as far as life experiance and working in the real world. I was caught up in jets and airplanes too and the Navy let me fly on and work on them. They sold me with a lot of different things I guess.

Also I wanted to go over and "fight" in Gulf war one and got some mission time over there. Things were so much simpler then. Now that I'm a little older I would not want my kids to join the military. Not just because they are sent into harms way because of bad policies either. Mainly I think the Pentagon is currently being run by a bunch of idiots. As a soldier your willing to be put in harms way for an ideal but I think they get really jaded by the way things are run. That is the impression I'm getting from friends I still have in the Army. Of course I've not done a full out scientific poll or anything. My opin is based on my experiance.

[Father Demon]

I joined 20 years ago, and got out 10 years ago.  Back in my day, the idea of war was Grenada, with knowledge that something big could possibly happen.  I was in during Gulf War I, but never went into that part of the world.

At 19, I had flunked out of college and was wasting my life in a nowhere job and no money.  I'm smart, but I farged up.  So, I joined the military at 21 to a) get my self straightened out, b) finish college, and c) get training.  I also grew up with a pretty strong run in patriotism, so that was a bonus for me knowing I was one of the ones that doing a part for my country.  Idealistic? Sure.  Also, I knew war could happen, and I would go if tasked.

Joining the military was the best decision I ever made.  I did straighten up, I finished not only my bachelor's degree by going to night school, but it gave me the discipline to get my MBA also through night school.  I received top notch training that allows me to earn a comfortable living now.  It also allowed me to see the world (well, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines anyway), and I also got my case of the crazies out of me.  The second best choice I ever made was leaving the military.  I got what I wanted out of it, and it got my service.  Fair trade.

I'm a big believer in the military for young adults that need some focus and maturity. I think it's a great thing for learning about life.  My oldest son isn't medically able to join because he's a diabetic, but I wish he would be able.  Even 4 years is a great lesson in life that will last forever.

[rjs246]

Thanks for the answers guys. I was just curious I guess.