PDA

View Full Version : Iraq Has Descended into Anarchy, Says Fisk



DLR'sCock
10-15-2005, 10:16 PM
Iraq Has Descended into Anarchy, Says Fisk
By Nigel Morris
The Independent UK

Thursday 13 October 2005

Most of Iraq is in a state of anarchy, with insurgents controlling parts of Baghdad just half a mile from the so-called Green Zone, an Independent debate was told last night.

Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for The Independent, whose new book The Great War for Civilisation: the Conquest of the Middle East has just been published by 4th Estate, painted a picture of deepening chaos and misery in Iraq more than two years after Saddam Hussein was toppled.

He said that the "constant, intensive involvement" in the Middle East by the West was a recurring pattern over centuries and was the reason why "so many Muslims in the Middle East hate us". He added: " We can close doors on history. They can't."

Fisk doubted the sincerity of Western leaders' commitment to bringing democracy to Iraq and said a lasting settlement in the country was impossible while foreign troops remained. "In the Middle East, they would like some of our democracy, they would like a couple of boxes off the supermarket shelves of human rights as well. But I think they would also like freedom from us."

Recalling the sight of an immense US convoy rolling into the country's capital, he said: "A superpower has a visceral need to project military power. We can go to Baghdad, so we will go to Baghdad."

He told the debate in London: "The Americans must leave Iraq and they will leave Iraq, but they can't leave Iraq and that is the equation that turns sand to blood. At some point, they will have to talk to the insurgents.

"But I don't know how, because those people who might be negotiators _ the United Nations, the Red Cross their headquarters have been blown up. The reality now in Iraq is the project is finished. Most of Iraq, except Kurdistan, is in a state of anarchy."

He said that the portrayal of Iraq by Western leaders _ of efforts to introduce democracy, including Saturday's national vote on the country's proposed constitution _ was "unreal" to most of its citizens. In Baghdad, children and women were kept at home to prevent them from being kidnapped for money or sold into slavery. They faced a desperate struggle to find the money to keep generators running to provide themselves with electricity. "They aren't sitting in their front rooms discussing the referendum on the constitution."

With insurgents half a mile from Baghdad's Green Zone, Fisk said the danger to reporters from a brutal insurgency that did not respect journalists was increasing. "Every time I go to Baghdad it's worse, every time I ask myself how we can keep going. Because the real question is _ is the story worth the risk?"

He attacked television reporters for flinching from depicting the everyday bloodshed on the streets of Iraq. "You can go and see Saving Private Ryan or Kingdom of Heaven, people have their heads cut off. When it comes to real heads being cut off, you can't. I think television connives with governments at war." He added: "Newspapers can tell you as closely as they can what these horrors are like."

Asked if the "anger and passion" he felt over the events he witnessed had affected his objectivity, he said: "When you are at the scene of a massacre, you are entitled to feel immense anger and I do."

He rejected suggestions that graphic pictures of the dead in newspapers took away their dignity. He said: "My view is the people who are dead would want us to record what happened to them."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to Original

US Troops 'Starve Iraqi Citizens'
BBC

Saturday 15 October 2005

A senior United Nations official has accused US-led coalition troops of depriving Iraqi civilians of food and water in breach of humanitarian law.

Human rights investigator Jean Ziegler said they had driven people out of insurgent strongholds that were about to be attacked by cutting supplies.

Mr Ziegler, a Swiss-born sociologist, said such tactics were in breach of international law.

A US military spokesman in Baghdad denied the allegations.

"A drama is taking place in total silence in Iraq, where the coalition's occupying forces are using hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population," Mr Ziegler told a press conference in Geneva.

He said coalition forces were using "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare."

"This is a flagrant violation of international law," he added.

'False Allegations'

Mr Ziegler said he understood the "military rationale" when confronting insurgents who do not respect "any law of war".

But he insisted that civilians who could not leave besieged cities and towns for whatever reason should not suffer as a result of this strategy.

Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, a US military spokesman, later rejected the accusations.

"Any allegations of us withholding basic needs from the Iraqi people are false," he said.

Even though some supplies had been delayed during fighting, he argued that "all precautions" were being taken to take care of civilians.

"It does not do relief supplies any good if you have them going into a firefight," he said.

The Geneva Conventions forbid depriving civilians of food and water.

Cutting off food supply lines and destroying food stocks is also forbidden.

Mr Ziegler, who opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq, said he would urge the UN General Assembly to condemn this practice when he presented his yearly report on 27 October.

-------

Warham
10-16-2005, 11:08 AM
So much anarchy that 61% of eligible voters went to the polls yesterday.

Mass hysteria, for sure.

Nickdfresh
10-16-2005, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Warham
So much anarchy that 61% of eligible voters went to the polls yesterday.

Mass hysteria, for sure.

Actually, I heard this week that the Iraqi Sunni-led guerillas wanted people to go to the polls so they could vote 'no,' and most vowed to not only not attack, but to provide unofficial security...

Warham
10-16-2005, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually, I heard this week that the Iraqi Sunni-led guerillas wanted people to go to the polls so they could vote 'no,' and most vowed to not only not attack, but to provide unofficial security...

Well, it looks like they failed, as preliminary reports suggest the constitution will pass. They better get back to doing it the old-fashioned way: carbombing innocent people on street corners.

LoungeMachine
10-16-2005, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Warham
So much anarchy that 61% of eligible voters went to the polls yesterday.

Mass hysteria, for sure.

5 more US Soldiers dead today.

Fuck you and your smarmy retort.



It IS anarchy over there, you're just too much of a BushSucker to even admit it.

Warham
10-16-2005, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine


It IS anarchy over there, you're just too much of a BushSucker to even admit it.

There was more anarchy in Toledo, Ohio than there was in Iraq yesterday.

Gee, you wouldn't happen to be from Seattle, would you?

FORD
10-16-2005, 11:29 AM
http://www.canaltrans.com/musica/images/punk/sexpistols.jpg
Is this the M.P.L.A or
Is this the U.D.A or
Is this the I.R.A
I thought it was the UK
Or just another country
Another fuckup by the BCE....

Nickdfresh
10-16-2005, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Well, it looks like they failed, as preliminary reports suggest the constitution will pass. They better get back to doing it the old-fashioned way: carbombing innocent people on street corners.

That's 'al Qaida of Iraq,' different group entirely, though allied with the Iraqi Resistance (at this point). The civil war is coming, no matter what, at this point; sides have been been chosen. The only real question is how long the US will let itself be bled like we did in Vietnam...

Nickdfresh
10-16-2005, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Warham
There was more anarchy in Toledo, Ohio than there was in Iraq yesterday.

Gee, you wouldn't happen to be from Seattle, would you?

How many Ohio National Guardsmen died in their state yesterday?

FORD
10-16-2005, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That's 'al Qaida of Iraq,' different group entirely

Yes, different as in "entirely fictional".

Warham
10-16-2005, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That's 'al Qaida of Iraq,' different group entirely, though allied with the Iraqi Resistance (at this point). The civil war is coming, no matter what, at this point; sides have been been chosen. The only real question is how long the US will let itself be bled like we did in Vietnam...

Well, if a civil war happens, it happens. Our civil war made our country better as a result, perhaps theirs will too, if such a scenario happens.

I'm tired of the comparisons to Vietnam really. There's very little in common between the two wars. Just in terms of casualties, Some 56,000+ men died between 1965-1973 in Southeast Asia. We would have to be there until 2058, at the present rate of lost soldiers, to acrue those kinds of casualties.

Warham
10-16-2005, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
How many Ohio National Guardsmen died in their state yesterday?

Anarchy is not always described in terms of casualties.

Nickdfresh
10-16-2005, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Well, if a civil war happens, it happens. Our civil war made our country better as a result, perhaps theirs will too, if such a scenario happens.

I'm tired of the comparisons to Vietnam really. There's very little in common between the two wars. Just in terms of casualties, Some 56,000+ men died between 1965-1973 in Southeast Asia. We would have to be there until 2058, at the present rate of lost soldiers, to acrue those kinds of casualties.

Well, the comparisons are quite apt. We're involved in a quagmire in which the gov't has no clue as to what it is doing. And who gives a fuck how many are dying in terms of numbers when they're throwing their lives away for a big nothing? Typical hypocritical right-wing propaganda trash (oh, it's a much smaller war, so US deaths are more acceptable) BULLSHIT!!

And all you guys used to do was bitch about the Khobar Towers bombings or the USS Cole, or Mogadishu. I guess the numbers only matter when you rail agaisnt Democrats.

How about, 'only' 3,000 people died on 9/11, and that's not enough of an excuse for running around the world, spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to "head off" the next attack in fool hardy misadventures that make no sense, and may actually make future attacks more likely.

I guess it's okay to suffer few needless casuslties...As long as you or none of your relatives are doing the dying...

P.S. And besides, when your Fearless Leader keeps couching the "War on Terra'" in terms of WWII analogies, I think Vietnam is quite apt...

Nickdfresh
10-16-2005, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Anarchy is not always described in terms of casualties.

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Warham
10-16-2005, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And who gives a fuck how many are dying in terms of numbers when they're throwing their lives away for a big nothing?

Your opinion, nothing more.


And all you guys used to do was bitch about the Khobar Towers bombings or the USS Cole, or Mogadishu. I guess the numbers only matter when you rail agaisnt Democrats.


Ha! Bush-haters rub their hands together every time the body count goes up in Iraq. Please.


How about, 'only' 3,000 people died on 9/11, and that's not enough of an excuse for running around the world, spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to "head off" the next attack in fool hardy misadventures that make no sense, and may actually make future attacks more likely.

How many times have we been attacked since 9/11?


I guess it's okay to suffer few needless casuslties...As long as you or none of your relatives are doing the dying...

I think there are plenty of Bush supporters who have relatives fighting over in Iraq right now.


P.S. And besides, when your Fearless Leader keeps couching the "War on Terra'" in terms of WWII analogies, I think Vietnam is quite apt...

That's Bush's decision to use analogies, if he so chooses. I see few between this war and Iraq.

Guitar Shark
10-16-2005, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Gee, you wouldn't happen to be from Seattle, would you?

What's your point?

Nickdfresh
10-16-2005, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Your opinion, nothing more.

One backed up by a substantial body of data.




Ha! Bush-haters rub their hands together every time the body count goes up in Iraq. Please.

And those numbers are unprecedented...




How many times have we been attacked since 9/11?

Exactly. The threat was always exaggerated, watch "The Power of Nightmares" from the BBC for more info. Once they were chased out of Afghanistan, there was virtually no threat left, until we blew our wad over Iraq.


I think there are plenty of Bush supporters who have relatives fighting over in Iraq right now.

Yeah, but they're not here minimizing the sacrifice as much less than in Vietnam.


That's Bush's decision to use analogies, if he so chooses. I see few between this war and Iraq.

Oh, that idiot can use whatever bullshit analogies he wants when giving bullshit speeches that you sheep baaah too? But I'm not allowed too?

Warham
10-16-2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
What's your point?

It's a subtle crack about musicians and music from Seattle.

Warham
10-16-2005, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
One backed up by a substantial body of data.

I've got substancial evidence that it is worth it. I guess it'll go back to opinion.

And those numbers are unprecedented...

No, we've had plenty of wars where the body count has been higher.

Exactly. The threat was always exaggerated, watch "The Power of Nightmares" from the BBC for more info. Once they were chased out of Afghanistan, there was virtually no threat left, until we blew our wad over Iraq.

So, all of the sudden, once we enter Iraq, Al-Qaida decides to put up a fight? I thought they weren't in Iraq to begin with? And why is Al-Qaida concerned about democracy in Iraq? Was Saddam really funnelling cash to terrorists all those years? Al-Qaida certainly has been having a cash-flow problem since 2003.

Yeah, but they're not here minimizing the sacrifice as much less than in Vietnam.

Oh, that idiot can use whatever bullshit analogies he wants when giving bullshit speeches that you sheep baaah too? But I'm not allowed too?

You can use flawed analogies like Bush does, if you like.

LoungeMachine
10-16-2005, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Warham
It's a subtle crack about musicians and music from Seattle.

Ironic considering your avatar :rolleyes:

But hilarious nonetheless. You must slay them at your Hitler Youth gatherings while you worship Bush.

LoungeMachine
10-16-2005, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
What's your point?

He never has one....

Other than the fact he's still pissed Clinton got a hummer, which is still one more than warpig has ever received.

No WMD

Not enough Troops

No exit strategy

No control over looting

Disbanding Iraqi Army

Not securing weapons caches later used to kill US Soldiers

Abu Graib tortures ok'd by command

Billions missing in frauds

Coalition members leaving

Powell leaving

Chalabi

But freedom's on the march, stay the course, mission accomplished.



Warham and his ilk make me sick.

This "war" has nothing to do w/ WMD, or 9/11, or any "war on terror", and he fucking knows it.

Btw, where's OBL anyway? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

dumbass

Nickdfresh
10-16-2005, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Warham
So, all of the sudden, once we enter Iraq, Al-Qaida decides to put up a fight?

You don't even know what al Qaida is. Zarqawi would be dead or in a Jordanian prison, and few arabic men would in any seek to fight Americans if we didn't make it so easy by going into Iraq and handing them a complete propaganda coup. Foreign fighters are only 5% of the resistance in Iraq, most of those fighting the US are Iraqis. Al Qaida was a tiny organization of fractured, competing groups of Islamists with often different objectives and goals.

Cash flow? Clinton had the Saudis crack down on Bin Laden's family, and cut off his family money. In fact al Qaida requires little money and is still getting a lot of dough from donations, especially from states that are our "allies" like the Saudis and Pakis...And the resistance in Iraq seems to have ample cash and weaponry...



I thought they weren't in Iraq to begin with?

You were correct, they weren't.


And why is Al-Qaida concerned about democracy in Iraq?

Because they want to undermine our policies, Bush and his cronies seem to give them ample help.



Was Saddam really funnelling cash to terrorists all those years? Al-Qaida certainly has been having a cash-flow problem since 2003. [/B]

No. Read the 9/11 report. He was funneling no cash to anti-US terrorists and his goals were completely different from al Qaida's. SADDAM was secular and actually served as a bulwark against the Iranians, pretty soon the Iraqi Shias will drift into that sphere of Islamic fundamentalism. Mission Accomplished!

thome
10-16-2005, 07:56 PM
And Irak and the Mid-East have always been such a Love Fest.

Too bad in the future Bush is going to be seen as one of the
Heros /Saviors/Libarators of life and humand rites.

Those who can should.

Don't come down too hard on me. Police men and women are killed
doing the exact same thing every day, everywhere.

You know damn good and well the world wants this. Us ,The USA to do
what were doing .

How many people died in Irak before we got there 20 mill.Is a low ball
figure .