Iraqis Fleeing Iraq [Archive]

Mephisto

15th October 2006, 08:13 AM

. . . and they're taking their purple thumbs with them. ;)

Iraqis 'fleeing rising violence'

Pam O'Toole
BBC News

Thousands of Iraqis are fleeing the country every day, in what the UN's refugee agency describes as a steady, silent exodus.

The number of Iraqis claiming asylum in the West is growing, says the UNHCR.

The agency also says the number of internally displaced is growing, with some 365,000 Iraqis uprooted this year.

Earlier this week the Baghdad government estimated that about 300,000 people had been internally displaced since February.

It was in February this year when Shia Muslim shrines in the town of Samarra were destroyed in bomb attacks blamed on Sunni militants.

The UNHCR had previously been concentrating its operations in Iraq on helping exiled Iraqis return home and helping non-Iraqi refugees living there.

'Silent exodus'

The agency says that last year about 50,000 Iraqis returned from neighbouring countries. This year only 1,000 did.

"UNHCR is monitoring the border in Syria, for example," said UNHCR spokesman Ron Redmond.

"Our staff [are] seeing about 2,000 people a day coming across, so it's more than 40,000 people a month just into Syria."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6049174.stm
____________

Let's see . . . innocent Iraqis leaving the country, foreign insurgents moving in to gain combat experience, a raging civil war, clearly the best thing to do is to . . . . . . . stay the course. ;)

Iraq is going to be very interesting in the upcoming months. :(

zenith-nadir

15th October 2006, 08:16 AM

I'd flee too. The last thing I would want is for me, or my family, to be caught up in the Sunni-Shiite bloodbath that shows no signs of ending this century.

{edited to add}

BAGHDAD, Iraq Oct 15, 2006 (AP) (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2569289&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

Suspected Shiite militiamen killed at least 46 Sunni Arabs in a weekend rampage of revenge killing in a city north of Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said....

Mephisto

15th October 2006, 08:21 AM

I'd flee too. The last thing I would want is for me, or my family, to be caught up in the Sunni-Shiite bloodbath that shows no signs of ending this century.

{edited to add}

:) I see we agree perfectly when it comes to survival or preservation of our families.

I guess the best selling point for this unexpected migration is that, "they have the RIGHT to flee." ;)

peptoabysmal

15th October 2006, 09:08 AM

Tricky

15th October 2006, 09:35 AM

Too bad Saddam's not still in charge, he would have nerve gassed them as they tried to cross the border.
With what?

SlippyToad

15th October 2006, 09:55 AM

Too bad Saddam's not still in charge, he would have nerve gassed them as they tried to cross the border.

From your comments, I assume you've come up with an alternate strategy that doesn't turn Iraq into al-Quedastan. I'd like to hear that alternate strategy.
The people in charge of coming up with that strategy threatened to (http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060909/NEWS/609090335) fire (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801797.html) anyone found working on a post-invasion plan for occupation. Frankly asking critics of the current non-plan what their plan is disingenious. ANY strategy would have been better than the one that was used -- which was none.

No plan may be sufficient. It's crossed the minds of many people that there is no further action the US can take in Iraq.

As a little preview, our occupation of Afghanistan (remember them? They actually had Al-Queda cells in their country before we invaded them!) has failed so thoroughly that prominent Republicans are considering allowing the Taliban back in charge (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html). So it's pretty clear that all options, bad and worse, are on the table.

And I say "bad and worse" because there may not be a good option. Bush has pretty much painted us into a corner on Iraq. Pointing at critics and screaming that they "have no plan" is just pathetic at this point.

Mephisto

15th October 2006, 11:34 AM

The people in charge of coming up with that strategy threatened to (http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060909/NEWS/609090335) fire (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801797.html) anyone found working on a post-invasion plan for occupation. Frankly asking critics of the current non-plan what their plan is disingenious. ANY strategy would have been better than the one that was used -- which was none.

No plan may be sufficient. It's crossed the minds of many people that there is no further action the US can take in Iraq.

As a little preview, our occupation of Afghanistan (remember them? They actually had Al-Queda cells in their country before we invaded them!) has failed so thoroughly that prominent Republicans are considering allowing the Taliban back in charge (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html). So it's pretty clear that all options, bad and worse, are on the table.

And I say "bad and worse" because there may not be a good option. Bush has pretty much painted us into a corner on Iraq. Pointing at critics and screaming that they "have no plan" is just pathetic at this point.

Remember how testy the administration got when asked WHAT their plan was? :)

Mephisto

15th October 2006, 07:47 PM

With what?

With WMD, of course! ;) We know where they are; they north, and south, and east and west of Tikrit.

peptoabysmal

15th October 2006, 11:03 PM

With what?

We know that ~500 shells were found. Does anyone think that is all of them?

a_unique_person

15th October 2006, 11:20 PM

yep.

Tony

16th October 2006, 12:16 AM

With what?

Those vast stockpiles of phantom chemical weapons.

Tricky

16th October 2006, 03:26 AM

We know that ~500 shells were found. Does anyone think that is all of them?
Funny. Even Dubya admits that no WMDs were found.

Darth Rotor

16th October 2006, 04:35 AM

Funny. Even Dubya admits that no WMDs were found.
That is funny, isn't it? Even though 500 gas shells were found, albeit long in the tooth and of dubious operationsl effeciveness, the "uh, oops, not there really" appears to be his new position.

Rick Santorum must be chewing off his fingernails in frustration.

DR

FreeChile

16th October 2006, 07:51 AM

Funny. Even Dubya admits that no WMDs were found.
That is precisely what the powerful anticipate--that the gullible will defend them beyond what they themselves defend. Pure and simple cultisism, isn't it? Just look at the media. They don't have to force them to follow them beyond. They'll do it all by themselves.

peptoabysmal

16th October 2006, 08:26 AM

Funny. Even Dubya admits that no WMDs were found.

Since it is a known fact, it doesn't matter what GW admits or doesn't admit.
Saddam was getting real cozy with the Ruskies near the end. I have a feeling Saddam no longer needed to produce, serious weapons were only a swipe of the ATM away.

Tricky

16th October 2006, 09:06 AM

That is precisely what the powerful anticipate--that the gullible will defend them beyond what they themselves defend. Pure and simple cultisism, isn't it? Just look at the media. They don't have to force them to follow them beyond. They'll do it all by themselves.
Indeed. 43% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved on the attacks of September 11th, 2001 according to Opinion Research Corporation for CNN. (http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=134&id=5514&t=No+link+between+Hussein%2C+al-Qaeda%3ASenate+Committee)

peptoabysmal

16th October 2006, 11:14 AM

Indeed. 43% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved on the attacks of September 11th, 2001 according to Opinion Research Corporation for CNN. (http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=134&id=5514&t=No+link+between+Hussein%2C+al-Qaeda%3ASenate+Committee)

Saddam was at least interested in dating Bin Laden, if not going steady:
A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

Polls are interesting, though, aren't they?
It turns out an overwhelming majority of people in the Muslim world, according to a Gallup poll, do not believe the attacks of Sept. 11 were orchestrated by Osama bin Laden, or by Arabs, or by Muslims.

Many believe, instead, that the whole thing was a conspiracy orchestrated by Jews.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/60II/main520768.shtml

Darth Rotor

16th October 2006, 11:33 AM

It turns out an overwhelming majority of people in the Muslim world, according to a Gallup poll, do not believe the attacks of Sept. 11 were orchestrated by Osama bin Laden, or by Arabs, or by Muslims.

Many believe, instead, that the whole thing was a conspiracy orchestrated by Jews.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520768.shtml
So, from this I take it that Dylan Avery is an Arab Muslim? :confused:

DR

peptoabysmal

16th October 2006, 11:38 AM

So, from this I take it that Dylan Avery is an Arab Muslim? :confused:

DR

LMAO

Got any loose change, mister?

Darth Rotor

16th October 2006, 11:40 AM

LMAO

Got any loose change, mister?
Get rial. :D

DR

peptoabysmal

16th October 2006, 04:32 PM

yep.
That makes one.
You really are unique.

Renfield

16th October 2006, 04:38 PM

geni

16th October 2006, 05:40 PM

Since it is a known fact, it doesn't matter what GW admits or doesn't admit.
Saddam was getting real cozy with the Ruskies near the end. I have a feeling Saddam no longer needed to produce, serious weapons were only a swipe of the ATM away.

Saddam owed the russians money. It is doubtful they would have sold him anything of significance.

Megalodon

17th October 2006, 03:37 AM

Saddam was getting real cozy with the Ruskies near the end. I have a feeling Saddam no longer needed to produce, serious weapons were only a swipe of the ATM away.

And in case that didn't work, he was getting friendly with the Gas Fairies, as well as with the Virulent Pixies and Nuclear Leprechauns. They are known for cuddling, fluttering around fluffy animals, producing magic golden dust, and giving WMD to evil dictators...

And the aliens... don't nobody forget them aliens! They spend their evenings anal-probing american citizens... It would be a small step for them to give a Death Ray to Saddam.

Mephisto

17th October 2006, 07:14 AM

Just the liberal media, focusing on the negative again. I know a soldier who gave an Iraqi boy a ride home from school. No doubt the boy gained an appreciation for America after that, but you never saw a story about it on the news. They never focus on any positive events.

Yeah, the media always concentrates on the bad stuff, like bombings and death and people forced to leave their homes. Why don't they talk about all the people in Iraq that DIDN'T get blown up today? There are a lot more of them than people who died. How about all those people who haven't left Iraq? ;)

Tailgater

17th October 2006, 07:48 AM

And in case that didn't work, he was getting friendly with the Gas Fairies, as well as with the Virulent Pixies and Nuclear Leprechauns. They are known for cuddling, fluttering around fluffy animals, producing magic golden dust, and giving WMD to evil dictators...

And the aliens... don't nobody forget them aliens! They spend their evenings anal-probing american citizens... It would be a small step for them to give a Death Ray to Saddam.

Those were not aliens. They were Bushco agents working under the patriot act after using wiretapping to find liberal CTers and bringing them to the secret prisons for anal-probing and reprogramming. Or were they.....

fuelair

17th October 2006, 08:24 AM

Those were not aliens. They were Bushco agents working under the patriot act after using wiretapping to find liberal CTers and bringing them to the secret prisons for anal-probing and reprogramming. Or were they.....

Funny thing about their anal probes - they seem to be attached to their bodies.

Megalodon

17th October 2006, 08:34 AM

Funny thing about their anal probes - they seem to be attached to their bodies.

Well, you guys should know... considering I'm neither an american or in the US, I wouldn't know such details. Although that might explain your "I love Kerry" pin :)

But it's funny that when pepto rambles about how Saddam really had WMDs (info that Bush didn't use due to is love of Democrats, I suppose) you talk about liberal CTers. And I suppose foley is a democrat, and it's all Clinton's fault...

Tricky

17th October 2006, 08:49 AM

Well, you guys should know... considering I'm neither an american or in the US, I wouldn't know such details. Although that might explain your "I love Kerry" pin :).
Obviously, you're far too knowledgable to be an American..:p

But it's funny that when pepto rambles about how Saddam really had WMDs (info that Bush didn't use due to is love of Democrats, I suppose) you talk about liberal CTers.
For me, it has always been clear that Saddam didn't have usable WMDs at the time of the invasion or he would have used them. It was his very best chance to use them, what with the invaders clustered at the shores. Certainly he wasn't held back by his compassion for his people. It can't be that he preferred his plan to go live in a hole in the ground and have his two sons killed. He surely knew that if he was captured, he was finished anyway, so why not go out with a bang? As the vast majority of the evidence shows, it was because he didn't have a bang to go out with.

So every time I here Pepe and pals holding forth about "What Saddam would have done," I have to say, "Then why didn't he?"

SlippyToad

18th October 2006, 08:22 PM

Since it is a known fact, it doesn't matter what GW admits or doesn't admit.
Saddam was getting real cozy with the Ruskies near the end. I have a feeling Saddam no longer needed to produce, serious weapons were only a swipe of the ATM away.I've decided, Pepto, based on your statements on this topic, that silly-ass things like facts simply don't matter to you. What was found were unequivocally not the Weapons of Mass Destruction that lured us into this war. They were old shells from 1991 that were no longer effective and certainly not something that Saddam could threaten the U.S. with, nor were they part of an ongoing weapons program. They were NOT nukes, and they were not usable. And in attempting to make these shells seem like part of something more threatening, you've without any apparent evidentiary reason invoked phantom Russian "deals" with Saddam, making it pretty obvious that you're abandoning your defenese of the shells. Which by the way were introduced at a press conference by none other than batsh*t crazy Rick Santorum, who has just invoked the Eye of Mordor as a defense for the failed Iraq strategy. I mean, you can't get any more credible than that!

crocodile deathroll

18th October 2006, 11:44 PM

Mephisto

19th October 2006, 04:49 AM

I've decided, Pepto, based on your statements on this topic, that silly-ass things like facts simply don't matter to you. What was found were unequivocally not the Weapons of Mass Destruction that lured us into this war. They were old shells from 1991 that were no longer effective and certainly not something that Saddam could threaten the U.S. with, nor were they part of an ongoing weapons program. They were NOT nukes, and they were not usable. And in attempting to make these shells seem like part of something more threatening, you've without any apparent evidentiary reason invoked phantom Russian "deals" with Saddam, making it pretty obvious that you're abandoning your defenese of the shells. Which by the way were introduced at a press conference by none other than batsh*t crazy Rick Santorum, who has just invoked the Eye of Mordor as a defense for the failed Iraq strategy. I mean, you can't get any more credible than that!

To be fair to Pepto though - they NEVER found those unmanned drones that Saddam could have sent across the ocean to drop biological weapons on us, so they must exist. ;)

Mephisto

19th October 2006, 04:54 AM

I would never of thought I would wish they could just bring back Saddam to restore some air of normality to the place. At least he is the best of a bad lot. It could not be worse than the situation Iraq is in at the moment. Before we just had to content was just one SOB dictator now we have to contend with swarms of SOB Islamo-fundies.

Bill Mahr joked recently that the Iraqis would be happy if we could just get the death & torture back down to pre-invasion levels. :)

BTW Dubya has now got the uneviable honour of being resposible for about as many American deaths through an illegal act as Osama Bin-Ladin.

CD

Small wonder the U.S. is considered one of the greatest threats to world peace. If you take into consideration the 600,000 alleged deaths on innocents in Iraq, Bush is actually far worse than Bin Laden.

I wonder how the American public would react to an invading army killing 600,000 of our citizens? Think we'd be ready to embrace their form of government? ;)

Darth Rotor

19th October 2006, 06:59 AM

Bill Mahr joked recently that the Iraqis would be happy if we could just get the death & torture back down to pre-invasion levels. :)

Small wonder the U.S. is considered one of the greatest threats to world peace. If you take into consideration the 600,000 alleged deaths on innocents in Iraq, Bush is actually far worse than Bin Laden.

I wonder how the American public would react to an invading army killing 600,000 of our citizens? Think we'd be ready to embrace their form of government? ;)
Since the US didn't kill any 600,000, your strawman would be used to start a Halloween bonfire. Note the "died due to effects of war" which includes a whole load of Iraqi on Iraqi violence.

Glossing over details for 50, Alex. :)

DR

SlippyToad

19th October 2006, 06:39 PM

Since the US didn't kill any 600,000, your strawman would be used to start a Halloween bonfire. Note the "died due to effects of war" which includes a whole load of Iraqi on Iraqi violence.

Glossing over details for 50, Alex. :)

DRWe don't know how many of the 600,000 we've killed. The Pentagon has been amazingly reticent about actual facts regarding this war. Maybe because it's nothing more than a massive, expensive political stunt.

But, "glossing over details" it isn't. Saddam killed people, undeniably, and was a rotten guy. But the ~600,000 dead today would undeniably still be alive had we not pre-emtorily invaded on false evidence at the panicked urging of a political faction acting in bad faith. Cause, meet effect.

Tricky

19th October 2006, 08:10 PM

Since the US didn't kill any 600,000, your strawman would be used to start a Halloween bonfire. Note the "died due to effects of war" which includes a whole load of Iraqi on Iraqi violence.
Nobody has suggested that the US killed .6 million. That number was how many have died as a result of the invasion. Many, if not most, are as a result of the civil war that followed the invasion.

Glossing over details for 50, Alex.
Ignorance of Jeopardy for 200, Alex.;)

a_unique_person

19th October 2006, 08:38 PM

We don't know how many of the 600,000 we've killed. The Pentagon has been amazingly reticent about actual facts regarding this war. Maybe because it's nothing more than a massive, expensive political stunt.

But, "glossing over details" it isn't. Saddam killed people, undeniably, and was a rotten guy. But the ~600,000 dead today would undeniably still be alive had we not pre-emtorily invaded on false evidence at the panicked urging of a political faction acting in bad faith. Cause, meet effect.

Not necessarily, if the invasion had at least been handled competently, then there would have been a lot less deaths. That is, it was a well known fact that about 500,000 troops were required, based on experience in Kosovo. Not rocket science. However, hubris meant that Rumsfeld and Cheney believed they could get by with a lot less. Of course, to put that many troops in the field in Iraq would have meant other areas of the world where the US maintains a strategic military presence would have had to have a lot less troops, with many possibly never returning.

All this shows is how monumentally stupid Bush is and why you don't want an ignoramus in charge of your country.