Attacks against Iraqis 'increase'

[Grammatron]

From the article:

Quote:

Attacks on American troops in Iraq have declined in recent weeks, but strikes against Iraqis are up, officials say.

At the same time, US forces have stepped up attacks on suspected insurgents, US administrator Paul Bremer and General John Abizaid said.

This kind of odd, because according to some people on this forum the Iraqis hate USA and don't want it there that's why they attack soldiers. And so they are also taking it out on their own people? This is very confusing to me.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
From the article:


according to some people on this forum

Any clues as to who? Generalisations of the form "all Iraqis....." are silly. I have no doubt a lot of Iraqis hate Americans and a lot do not.....So who are these "some people" and what have they said regarding who "Iraqis hate"?

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
From the article:
This kind of odd, because according to some people on this forum the Iraqis hate USA and don't want it there that's why they attack soldiers. And so they are also taking it out on their own people? This is very confusing to me.

It shouldn't be at all confusing to you. Iraq has long been riven by extremely fervent and brutal factionism. You didn't really expect that to go away did you?

What seems odd to me is that the fallback reason for the war (once the WMD thing fell through) was that the US was there to free the country from brutal oppression by their own people, yet exactly the opposite trend seems to be developing. What will be the next fallback reason for the invasion?

[geni]

People who are viewed as collaborators tend to end up as targets when the occupying forces make themselves difficult to kill.

[Mr Manifesto]

I disagree with the repliers to this thread. It's quite clear the Iraqis love the Americans. Especially that crowd who tried to drag those two American soldiers who had their throats cut to a hospital. If only they had stretchers...

[Mr Manifesto]

Insurgents target Iraqis aligned with US

[Nikk]

So far the "resistance" has managed to pretty much remove neutral third parties such as the U.N. and the Red Cross from the playing field.

It seems sensible that they should turn their attention to attacks on the Iraqi security forces who are meant to replace Coalition forces and have the potential to be more of a threat to the resistance because of their ability to forge links with the locals.

No doubt the U.S. forces are also adopting tactics which make them less easy targets - and even more isolated from the Iraqis whose hearts and minds they need to win over.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
From the article:


This kind of odd, because according to some people on this forum the Iraqis hate USA and don't want it there that's why they attack soldiers. And so they are also taking it out on their own people? This is very confusing to me.

From what I have read, there are a lot of scores to be settled, and a lot of criminals running free from when Saddam emptied the jails.

[Grammatron]

Ok. With the exception of tricky, I believe all of you have advocated withdraw from Iraq. However, from some of the replies you sound like that country needs more stability and security. How else would it achieve it?

[Mr Manifesto]

I don't advocate abandoning Iraq. In Richard G's thread, I was making fun of the fact that the US thumbed her nose at the UN, went it alone, now wants the UN's help... but on US terms... and whinges when the UN basically says they can go f*** themselves.

The US needs to rebuild her ties with the UN, and stop pretending she is in control. Say, "we frigged up, help us rebuild, we'll do it your way". The US had the chance to show it could be done her way, and it's increasingly looking like it can't. Time to let someone else have a bat.

[Grammatron]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I don't advocate abandoning Iraq. In Richard G's thread, I was making fun of the fact that the US thumbed her nose at the UN, went it alone, now wants the UN's help... but on US terms... and whinges when the UN basically says they can go f*** themselves.

The US needs to rebuild her ties with the UN, and stop pretending she is in control. Say, "we frigged up, help us rebuild, we'll do it your way". The US had the chance to show it could be done her way, and it's increasingly looking like it can't. Time to let someone else have a bat.

How is UN's way better than our's? I don't recall them having a good system of rebuilding nations or reeding them of dictators.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
Ok. With the exception of tricky, I believe all of you have advocated withdraw from Iraq. However, from some of the replies you sound like that country needs more stability and security. How else would it achieve it?

I think the list of people who advocate withdrawing from Iraq is quite long, It includes George W Bush too. So whats the problem? Do you think delaying the inevitable will make things better? The floggings will continue until morale improves? How long does it take to run an election? How about just asking everyone who wants a go at running the place to line up and draw straws?

If you go in and blow away the dictatorship why act surprised when a civil war is the result.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron


How is UN's way better than our's? I don't recall them having a good system of rebuilding nations or reeding them of dictators.

I don't think ignorance is an argument. There are plenty of examples of the UN doing what it can, within it's limits. That is, it is only as good as the will of it's members. It's capacity to document, analyse and disseminate information is impressive. Even the "Skeptical Environmentalist" turned to it as a source on many occasions. It is also a matter of what is achievable. In Iraq, the US has been reminded yet again, sheer military force can only achieve so much. The stated aim, of removing WMD from Saddam, had indeed already been achieved without an act of war.

Peacekeeping, and monitoring, missions are in progress around the world.

I would also note the success with Iran in using diplomacy to achieve a worthwhile end.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/home.shtml

The Tutsi/Hutu massacre has been called a failure for the UN. In fact, it had observers on the ground.

Quote:

In October 1993, the Security Council, by its resolution 872 (1993), established another international force, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), to help the parties implement the agreement, monitor its implementation and support the transitional Government. UNAMIR's demilitarized zone sector headquarters was established upon the arrival of the advance party and became operational on 1 November 1993, when the NMOG II elements were absorbed into UNAMIR. Deployment of the UNAMIR battalion in Kigali, composed of contingents from Belgium and Bangladesh, was completed in the first part of December 1993, and the Kigali weapons-secure area was established on 24 December.

The United Nations solicited troop contributions, but initially only Belgium with a half a battalion of 400 troops, and Bangladesh with a logistical element of 400 troops, offered personnel. It took five months to reach the authorized strength of 2,548. But because of many unresolved issues between the parties, implementation of the agreement was delayed. Consequently, the inauguration of the transitional Government never took place.

In April 1994, the Presidents of Rwanda and of Burundi were killed while returning from peace talks in Tanzania, when the Rwandese plane crashed, in circumstances that are still to be determined, as it was landing in Kigali, Rwanda's capital. This set off a tidal wave of political and ethnic killings: the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and UNAMIR peacekeepers were among the first victims.

Perhaps if the participants of the UN had been more willing, the structure that was set up and in place would have worked. The US can send over 100,000 troops to wage a war in Iraq, but none to Rwanda.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
How is UN's way better than our's? I don't recall them having a good system of rebuilding nations or ridding them of dictators.

The UN sanctions (which were also advocated by the US, especially under Clinton) along with renewed inspections seemed to have had a major effect on Saddam's murderous urges. Certainly he had been less brutal in the past few years than the current crop of terrorists are. But of course, there really is no good way to deal with a nation of warring factions like this. It was a big mistake for the US to stick their spoon in the pot, but now that they did, they must stay until the soup is done, even if they get burned in the process.

No the UN, because they balk at military intervention, has not been able to get rid of a lot of dictators, but there has been a lot of progress towards isolating them. Kim Jong Il has few if any friends. The president of Liberia was forced to abdicate. Admittedly, successes are few and not completely satisfying, but things are a heck of a lot better than they would be without the UN (IHMO). Unilateral diplomacy, on the other hand, has had no successes at all. The few successes the US has had, like Bosnia and perhaps Afghanistan, have been with at least some UN support. Disparaging the UN, and especially our NATO allies is unquestionably the worst way to handle this. Unless, of course, it was our intention to look like a bunch of arrogant bullies. If so, then "well done, Dubya".

[peptoabysmal]

It's not odd at all.

The method of terrorising his own citizens worked well for Saddam. Why wouldn't it work for any other group who wants to go in and take over?

[Crossbow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
From the article:


This kind of odd, because according to some people on this forum the Iraqis hate USA and don't want it there that's why they attack soldiers. And so they are also taking it out on their own people? This is very confusing to me.

Getting back to your original question, I would say that the reason why the frequency of attacks Iraqi attacks has been reduced lately is due to the attacks being made by the US forces. If they are having to deal with the strong attacks that are being made by the US, then it will be harder for them to launch attacks.

In other words, if your house is on fire, then it can be difficult to find the time to wash the windows.

OK now?

[crackmonkey]

Sanctions against Iraq had some limited success, but Saddam found more and more ways to get around them, and international political pressure against the sanctions was beginning to mount. I doubt that the sanctions would have lasted another year due to EU concerns about the toll it was taking on the iraqi populace.
If the UN had been authorized to take care of the Iraq problam, either Saddam would be rollin in petrodollars and rearming furiously as the UN bickered over what to do about it, or UN troops would be hunkered down in terror under a hail of Iraqi bullets as they waited for orders from their bickering leaders.

[a_unique_person]

But would they be stuck spending billions and billions (and billions) of dollars on fixing it up?

Like a quote I read the other day, "Once you spend hundreds of billions of dollars, we are starting to talk about real money".

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky
The few successes the US has had, like Bosnia and perhaps Afghanistan, have been with at least some UN support.

The UN didn't authorize NATO involvement in Bosnia. The involvement they DID have during the critical stages of the conflict was disastrous (in case you don't remember, UN troops let one of the "safe havens" they were protecting get overrun without any resistance, resulting in one of the worst masacres of the conflict). The UN can be useful when things calm down, but they're worse than useless when the bullets are flying.

Quote:

Disparaging the UN, and especially our NATO allies is unquestionably the worst way to handle this.

Funny that you mention disparaging NATO allies. Seems to me it was France, not the US, which was blocking NATO efforts to draw up defense plans for Turkey. We're not the ones who were prepared to abandon our allies, France was.

As for disparaging the UN, well, they deserve some disparaging. The UN has an incredible list of failures to its name. And if you think what we did was truly the worst way to handle things, then you either exagerate shamelessly or you suffer from a failure of imagination: there are PLENTY of worse ways we could have handled things.

[shuize]

Just out of curiosity, can anyone name the town the Dutch-UN peacekeepers abandoned leaving the Serbs to massacre somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 civilians?