PDA

View Full Version : Wave of blasts in Iraqi capital kills 63, wounds 185 amid political unrest



SarasotaRepub
12-22-2011, 08:27 AM
By Mohammed Tawfeeq, CNN
updated 7:02 AM EST, Thu December 22, 2011


Baghdad (CNN) -- A wave of explosions in Baghdad Thursday killed at least 63 people and wounded 185, authorities say, raising fears about the stability of the country amid political upheaval that threatens to undo Iraq's government just days after U.S. troops withdrew from the country.

Nine car bombs and six roadside bombs went off and a mortar round was fired in a two-hour period, targeting residential, commercial and government districts in the Iraqi capital, two police officials told CNN.

The violence comes as Iraq's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political leaders square off over a warrant issued for the arrest of Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, who is accused of organizing his security detail into a death squad that targeted government and military officials.

Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has demanded Kurdish lawmakers hand over the Sunni vice president, who has denied the charges and refuses to return to Baghdad from northern Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdish region.


LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/22/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

Bailey
12-22-2011, 08:44 AM
When the cats away....

Odysseus
12-22-2011, 09:22 AM
When the cats away....

Except that in this case, it's the rats that are coming out of the woodwork.

The US troop presence that Obama failed to get a deal on (actually, refused to get a deal on) would have been just enough to guarantee the stability of Iraq. Now, it's going to go south in a few months. The Kurds and the Sunni do not want to live under a Shia theocracy, and the country as a whole isn't strong enough to defy Iran.

The major players on the borders, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria, have already begun arming their proxies. Given that Syria is already an Iranian proxy, this means that Iran can engage from two directions, while the Saudis and Turks are confined to their own frontiers. Expect the Turks to annex parts of Iraqi Kurdistan (in order to eliminate the Kurdish bases that their own separatists operate from, as well as to flex their muscles), the Saudis to finance a Sunni insurgency and Iran and Syria to consolidate control of the Shiite polities through the use of local militias, as they did in Lebanon. Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army will become the Iraqi Hezbollah. The truly ugly fight will be for Mosul, which is Kurdish, but which has extensive oil resources.

Most likely COA: De facto partition along sectarian lines, with ongoing sectarian violence escalating to all-out war.

BadCat
12-22-2011, 09:36 AM
You're right Ody.

Leave it to Obumble to pull a dog turd from a hat full of diamonds.

Odysseus
12-22-2011, 10:10 AM
You're right Ody.

Leave it to Obumble to pull a dog turd from a hat full of diamonds.

The frustrating thing is that everyone wanted us to keep a presence there. The Shia don't want to live under Iranian theocracy, the Kurds and the Sunni knew that we'd be an honest broker in any future disputes and we'd ensure that the Iraqi military and civil institutions would continue to develop. The deal had already been agreed to in principle, it was just a matter of fine-tuning the details and overcoming a few sticking points, like extraterritoriality and immunity from local prosecution, which is something that the Iraqis would have compromised on in return for the security that our cadre would provide. Instead, Obama allowed the talks to lapse and didn't even make an attempt to salvage them with direct contact. He couldn't be bothered to pick up the phone. I guess that they didn't want to disturb him on the putting green.

The only winners in this are the various outside factions that have a vested interest in a weakened and destabilized Iraq, and a weakened United States.

Rockntractor
12-22-2011, 10:17 AM
They might last until the end of January, I doubt it.

txradioguy
12-22-2011, 10:44 AM
Except that in this case, it's the rats that are coming out of the woodwork.

The US troop presence that Obama failed to get a deal on (actually, refused to get a deal on) would have been just enough to guarantee the stability of Iraq. Now, it's going to go south in a few months. The Kurds and the Sunni do not want to live under a Shia theocracy, and the country as a whole isn't strong enough to defy Iran.




I would add to that this is why you never want to announce a specific date when you're leaving. It gives the bad guys a precise timeline on when they can ratchet up their chaos and destruction.

JB
12-22-2011, 06:20 PM
What did that take? About six minutes after the last soldier crossed into Kuwait?

What a clusterfuck.

Lanie
12-22-2011, 09:29 PM
The frustrating thing is that everyone wanted us to keep a presence there. The Shia don't want to live under Iranian theocracy, the Kurds and the Sunni knew that we'd be an honest broker in any future disputes and we'd ensure that the Iraqi military and civil institutions would continue to develop. The deal had already been agreed to in principle, it was just a matter of fine-tuning the details and overcoming a few sticking points, like extraterritoriality and immunity from local prosecution, which is something that the Iraqis would have compromised on in return for the security that our cadre would provide. Instead, Obama allowed the talks to lapse and didn't even make an attempt to salvage them with direct contact. He couldn't be bothered to pick up the phone. I guess that they didn't want to disturb him on the putting green.

The only winners in this are the various outside factions that have a vested interest in a weakened and destabilized Iraq, and a weakened United States.

I agree. I have to say I was really happy the past few days because of troops getting to come home. Those feelings weren't so much political so much as just being happy to see people come home. Then this happens and the initial fears turn out to be true. :( Obama's not going to do anything to fix it either. :(

Odysseus
12-23-2011, 12:51 AM
What did that take? About six minutes after the last soldier crossed into Kuwait?

What a clusterfuck.
This was totally predictable. The Shia have been trying to purge the Sunnis from the government for years, but we've kept them from doing it. Now, the Sunni will have no choice but to reform the insurgency. The major concern of the various Sunni regimes is that if Iraq becomes an Iranian ally, then there will be a string of Shiite states extending from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, cutting straight through the heart of the Arab Middle East. Syria is run by the Alawites, a Shia sect. Lebanon is run by Hezbollah, which is also Shiite. A Shiite confederation on Iranian leadership threatens the stability of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey, all of which border it.

I agree. I have to say I was really happy the past few days because of troops getting to come home. Those feelings weren't so much political so much as just being happy to see people come home. Then this happens and the initial fears turn out to be true. :( Obama's not going to do anything to fix it either. :(

Fix it? Obama is causing it. This is his payback to the Bush administration. He's ensuring that Iraq will be seen as a failure.

txradioguy
12-23-2011, 04:25 AM
Fix it? Obama is causing it. This is his payback to the Bush administration. He's ensuring that Iraq will be seen as a failure.

This could have all be avoided if he hadn't botched the negotiations a couple months ago with the Iraqi's.

Which is more and more looking like a purposeful election year torpedoing of the talks by the WH.

Lanie
12-23-2011, 09:35 AM
Fix it? Obama is causing it. This is his payback to the Bush administration. He's ensuring that Iraq will be seen as a failure.

Actually, this is Obama supposedly making good on what the left expected him to do. He got elected partially because people were sick of the Iraq war. He was criticized by the left when he didn't just pull them out. The year before an election year, he pulls them out. Notice he didn't pull troops out of Afghanistan. Not as big of a deal was made out of that war. Many anti-war activists were against that war as well, but the general public (voters) don't appear to have much of a problem with it.

txradioguy
12-23-2011, 09:45 AM
Actually, this is Obama supposedly making good on what the left expected him to do. He got elected partially because people were sick of the Iraq war.

His political base and the anti-War idiots on the left were tired of the "dumb war".

The majority of Americans were still supportive...especially after the surge worked.



He was criticized by the left when he didn't just pull them out.

By his leftist base and the media...which these days is one and the same.



The year before an election year, he pulls them out.

Which means the only reason he did it was to appease his leftists loving...terrorist sympathizing base. He put the stability of the region at risk for a few votes.

How heroic. :rolleyes:



Notice he didn't pull troops out of Afghanistan.

They are leaving...the draw down there is going on as we speak.

If he could pull them out tomorrow he would...especially since he and his administration thinks the taliban isn't the enemy.



Not as big of a deal was made out of that war. Many anti-war activists were against that war as well, but the general public (voters) don't appear to have much of a problem with it.

The same people that despise the good we did in Iraq despise the good we're doing in Afghanistan.

Your short Libtard memory seems to let you forget that Afghanistan was being called another Vietnam and a Quagmire only two weeks after the shooting started.

The same people that were trashing the Iraq war honed their talking point on what we were doing in Afghanistan...now that they'e managed to botch the agreements with the Iraqi's and get us out of there in a sloppy rush...they'll turn their attention to trashing what we're doing in Afghanistan...again.

Novaheart
12-23-2011, 10:24 AM
The frustrating thing is that everyone wanted us to keep a presence there. The Shia don't want to live under Iranian theocracy, the Kurds and the Sunni knew that we'd be an honest broker in any future disputes and we'd ensure that the Iraqi military and civil institutions would continue to develop. The deal had already been agreed to in principle, it was just a matter of fine-tuning the details and overcoming a few sticking points, like extraterritoriality and immunity from local prosecution, which is something that the Iraqis would have compromised on in return for the security that our cadre would provide. Instead, Obama allowed the talks to lapse and didn't even make an attempt to salvage them with direct contact. He couldn't be bothered to pick up the phone. I guess that they didn't want to disturb him on the putting green.

The only winners in this are the various outside factions that have a vested interest in a weakened and destabilized Iraq, and a weakened United States.

Won't whomever takes control have to sell as much oil as possible, essentially dumping it on the market, to generate the income necessary to prop up a strong man government?

So after years of being accused of being after the oil, hasn't our leaving guaranteed a short term glut on the market and a drop in oil prices for the 2012 election?

Wild guesses on my part. I don't claim to have any expertise in the region.

txradioguy
12-23-2011, 10:33 AM
Won't whomever takes control have to sell as much oil as possible, essentially dumping it on the market, to generate the income necessary to prop up a strong man government?

It depends on how much and how fast they are able to upgrade the infrastructure to bring the oil out of the ground and get it to the ships in port. The last stuff I read on their oil production is that they are still in the 1960's as far as technology.

Which makes sense given that in 2003-04 when I was there you'd see power plants that should have three working generators with only one in operation...because they were 1950's British designs that had cannibalized parts from the other two just to keep one operating.

30+ Years of Saddam decimated that country most than most folks realize.


So after years of being accused of being after the oil, hasn't our leaving guaranteed a short term glut on the market and a drop in oil prices for the 2012 election?

Nope. You would think that we'd have $1 a gallon after 10 years of being there...but I'm shelling out $3.70.


Wild guesses on my part. I don't claim to have any expertise in the region.

Not so wild actually.:)

Lanie
12-23-2011, 02:30 PM
His political base and the anti-War idiots on the left were tired of the "dumb war".

The majority of Americans were still supportive...especially after the surge worked.




By his leftist base and the media...which these days is one and the same.




Which means the only reason he did it was to appease his leftists loving...terrorist sympathizing base. He put the stability of the region at risk for a few votes.

How heroic. :rolleyes:




They are leaving...the draw down there is going on as we speak.

If he could pull them out tomorrow he would...especially since he and his administration thinks the taliban isn't the enemy.




The same people that despise the good we did in Iraq despise the good we're doing in Afghanistan.

Your short Libtard memory seems to let you forget that Afghanistan was being called another Vietnam and a Quagmire only two weeks after the shooting started.

The same people that were trashing the Iraq war honed their talking point on what we were doing in Afghanistan...now that they'e managed to botch the agreements with the Iraqi's and get us out of there in a sloppy rush...they'll turn their attention to trashing what we're doing in Afghanistan...again.

Tx, I don't know where you've gotten the idea that the majority of Americans are supportive of the Iraqi war. They were for the first year or two. About a year after Bush's re-election, they were mad.

I do remember the reaction that Afghanistan would be another Vietnam along with the first Iraq war. Guess what? The second Iraq war could have been another Vietnam with people constantly dying due to "freedom fighters." I think we should have stayed longer to help stabilize iraq.

However, i honestly think that Americans are generally selfish. Most of them prefer to have their troops home instead of Iraqis to be safe. The reason Bush was criticized for stockpiles of weapons not being found is because many Americans care mostly about us. They're not that concerned about the Kurds. And now, you all can officially accuse me of being anti-American. Not anti-war, not anti-governmebt actions. I'm criticiing the American people. You need to blame our selfish culture, not just "libtards." I don't hate Americans, sympathize with terrorists, or whatever. I just do honestly think we have a very, very selfish culture. At least those who are political actually care (whether we agree with them or not). I don't think the rest care that much unless it affects them.

txradioguy
12-23-2011, 06:09 PM
Tx, I don't know where you've gotten the idea that the majority of Americans are supportive of the Iraqi war. They were for the first year or two. About a year after Bush's re-election, they were mad.

Well first off I talk to more than just the people in an echo chamber. That's one problem you have.

I'd cite a poll...but they all seemed to have died out after the surge was a success...so once it looked like we were gonna win...the media lost interest.

I could post a nearly 7 year old poll but you'd just claim it was too old to be deemed accurate.


I do remember the reaction that Afghanistan would be another Vietnam along with the first Iraq war. Guess what? The second Iraq war could have been another Vietnam with people constantly dying due to "freedom fighters."

The first Iraq war? WTF are you talking about you stuttering moron? The first Iraq war lasted 100 hours.

Your Libtard brethren didn't give the war in Afghanistan two weeks before they started calling it another Vietnam and a quagmire.


I think we should have stayed longer to help stabilize iraq.

We could have and should have...but your guy screwed up the negotiations...and I'd say he did it purposely.


However, i honestly think that Americans are generally selfish.

Well of course you do...bless your heart. That's what all good Liberals are educated to believe.



Most of them prefer to have their troops home instead of Iraqis to be safe.

SO do we soldiers. But when we go to war we appreciate it if the people that send us there don't immediately turn around and try to cut the legs out form under us.

You and the rest of the Liberal mob did that almsot as soon as boots hit the ground.

And let me be clear...normal freedom loving Americans didn't abandon or stop supporting the troops or the effort in Iraq...Liberals and the MSM...again one in the same...abandoned us.

Now those might be regular Americans to you...but to the rest of us...they are the vast minority.


The reason Bush was criticized for stockpiles of weapons not being found is because many Americans care mostly about us.

Except as myself and others have proven ad nauseum...there were stockpiles of weapons found...you Liberal idiot then tried to excuse them away as "too old".


They're not that concerned about the Kurds.

You know this because? You got an inside mole at the State Department?

Quick quiz Bridget...who did we rush to help in the days after Iraq surrendered in 1991?


And now, you all can officially accuse me of being anti-American. Not anti-war, not anti-governmebt actions.

You're all of the above actually.


I'm criticiing the American people. You need to blame our selfish culture, not just "libtards."

I rightly blame you and the rest of the Libtards because you are the ones that constantly bang the "American's are selfish" drum when the facts and reality prove otherwise.



I don't hate Americans, sympathize with terrorists, or whatever.

Sure you don't.



I just do honestly think we have a very, very selfish culture.

All Liberals do.


At least those who are political actually care (whether we agree with them or not). I don't think the rest care that much unless it affects them.

The people that are "political" are actually a small fraction of America as a whole. That you think otherwise shows just how much of a close minded echo chamber you live in.

Which is why it's always such a shock to your sensitive Liberal feelings when you come face to face with reality.

AmPat
12-24-2011, 01:50 PM
Lanie, O Blah Blah couldn't give a S*** about our troops, the ones he is CIC of. He cares even less about the Iraqis. He is a Marxist, Narcissistic turd that is the biggest mistake in the history of the US. He makes Carter look like a genius.

Lanie
12-24-2011, 04:30 PM
Well first off I talk to more than just the people in an echo chamber. That's one problem you have.

You are absolutely right. (looks around and notices which board I'm on). Wait!

Let's see here. I come from a small town, have lived in a couple of big cities. I see a variety of people in both with different opinions and such. I'm a Catholic who visits my sister's Protestant church, has visited synagogues, and has went to a mosque to ask questions. I've worked in a variety of envirnments which have a variety of different types of people. If you ever become unemployed and want some amusement, work for a convenience store third shift. I've been around the religious, the not so religious, the moderate liberals, the moderate conservatives, the liberals who scare me, the conservatives who sometimes scare me but get on my nerves more than anything else, the anti-war protesters, the veterans, the preachers, the atheists, the pro-life, the pro-choice, the nice people, the mean people. I've even gotten to know Dexter fans. How screwed up is that? Can somebody here please tell me why they like Dexter? Yuk.

Okay, it's not the same as being around the world, but it's also not the same as an echo chamber. I was telling my sister the other day that I do think more Iraqis than the media portrayed wanted us to stay. But Americans? I didn't find hardly any Americans defending the war. It's not that they hated the troops. Actually the opposite. Some of them felt that we should put our troops before the Iraqis.

What Iraq and Vietnam had in common was the threat of extended years with more and more troops dying. America was not going to put up with it. If it comes down to some of our troops and hundreds of Iraqis, Americans will pick Americans every time. I personally see things as we're all part of the human race and we all need a chance to live. Americans don't see it that way.


I'd cite a poll...but they all seemed to have died out after the surge was a success...so once it looked like we were gonna win...the media lost interest.

I could post a nearly 7 year old poll but you'd just claim it was too old to be deemed accurate.


Seven years? I guess that was a year after Bush's second term. You're right. I'd want to see something later. Everything I saw in the news showed Americans didn't support the war. Why do you think Obama used his non-support of the war from the beginning against Hilary Clinton? It's because Clinton had supported the war. Why do you think people made a big deal out of McCain standing by his convictions that the war was just and should keep going? Because at that point, most Americans didn't agree and we knew it would be used against him and he'd lose the election (not that this was the only reason). So no, Americans didn't want it.



The first Iraq war? WTF are you talking about you stuttering moron? The first Iraq war lasted 100 hours.

You're such a nice person. It was still a war.


We could have and should have...but your guy screwed up the negotiations...and I'd say he did it purposely.


Why? Why would Obama want something that would make him look bad?


Well of course you do...bless your heart. That's what all good Liberals are educated to believe.


That's what I believe when I hear people support a war when they think *they* are threatened, but speak out against it if the ones being threatened are Kurds, Shiites, or others. As far as they are concerned, they're not our problem.

That's what I believe when I hear people speak in favor of nuking countries.


SO do we soldiers. But when we go to war we appreciate it if the people that send us there don't immediately turn around and try to cut the legs out form under us.

You and the rest of the Liberal mob did that almsot as soon as boots hit the ground.

Yeah, and we weren't listened to until after it hit Americans that our troops weren't coming home quickly like they did in 1991 (remember what I said? Selfishness?).

If you're expecting people not to speak out against the war, it's not going to happen. It is a free country. You fight to keep that going. That said, the anti-war movement wasn't exactly ran by Quakers. The major marches were organized by ANSWER. The idea was to protest, we didn't have to agree with their agenda. We knew nobody took their agenda seriously. At the same time, it just went too far. I didn't see any nasty anti-troop signs and I don't think any troops around me got spat on. Never saw it. At the same time, it all went way too far. I'm sorry. I wish I could take it back, but I can't. I haven't been involved in that since 2005.


And let me be clear...normal freedom loving Americans didn't abandon or stop supporting the troops or the effort in Iraq...Liberals and the MSM...again one in the same...abandoned us.

Just because people didn't go to marches doesn't mean they supported the war. I heard them talk tx. I spoke to them. I'd try to justify the idea of staying longer for stabilization and they didn't want to hear it.


Now those might be regular Americans to you...but to the rest of us...they are the vast minority.


No tx, they're the majority.


Except as myself and others have proven ad nauseum...there were stockpiles of weapons found...you Liberal idiot then tried to excuse them away as "too old".

Found in about 1991, right? What was found in 2003-2004? I *heard* that we found materials that could have gassed their neighbors again. Not to be mean, but that would not have been enough justification for war to the average American. Americans cared about whether WE could be hurt. Us, not the Kurds.


Quick quiz Bridget...who did we rush to help in the days after Iraq surrendered in 1991?

Another pop quiz. How many Americans do you think favor our troops dying on a regular basis to help the Kurds? Americans are about themselves. They're good for charities, giving blood, etc. But their average attitude regarding risking American lives to save another group of people (even thousands) is not a good one. I do think it's because many never forgot about Vietnam. How many troops did we lose in that unofficial war?


You're all of the above actually.

I still love people. I love this country itself. My attitude is about like Carlos Mencia. Other countries on their best day is not as good as us on our worst day. It doesn't mean there isn't room for growth.



I rightly blame you and the rest of the Libtards because you are the ones that constantly bang the "American's are selfish" drum when the facts and reality prove otherwise.


Like I said, we weren't listened to before Americans realized we were in Iraq a long time and that troops were dying. I think they expected a quick in and out. You say we're the minority? Fine. We needed more than our own numbers to get Obama in and we sure needed more than our own numbers to get politicians not wanting to support the war in 2008.


Sure you don't.

I could say the same thing about you, who demonizes all liberals and calls me a libtard. Sure, you love the sinner.



The people that are "political" are actually a small fraction of America as a whole. That you think otherwise shows just how much of a close minded echo chamber you live in.

I didn't say otherwise.

Okay, logic.

Lanie thinks that most Americans are selfish.
Lanie thinks the people who are political tend to not be selfish.

Logical conclusion?

Lanie thinks most Americans are not political.

And one doesn't have to be political to care about others outside of their own group, but they do have to care. I don't see evidence that we care outside of giving to charities. Even then, the attitude is often "But we have homeless people too."

Odysseus
12-24-2011, 06:44 PM
Won't whomever takes control have to sell as much oil as possible, essentially dumping it on the market, to generate the income necessary to prop up a strong man government?

So after years of being accused of being after the oil, hasn't our leaving guaranteed a short term glut on the market and a drop in oil prices for the 2012 election?

Wild guesses on my part. I don't claim to have any expertise in the region.
The main thing that guarantees the flow of Iraqi oil is political stability. Once that goes, the infrastructure is extremely vulnerable to attack by any faction. A disruption of the oil benefits the rest of OPEC, by creating scarcity and panic. Lower oil prices, OTOH, have dire consequences for Iran (which has no other hard currency exports, and is spending money hand over fist on it nuclear program), the Saudis (whose welfare state is catching up with them), Kuwait (ditto), Syria (which is dependent on Iran for support).

Why? Why would Obama want something that would make him look bad?
Because it doesn't make him look bad to his base, and nobody else's opinion matters. The press will continue to hide his failures, the political left will continue to deny them, the party faithful will vote for him in spite of them. And those of us who do see them as failures, the ones who fought in Iraq, the people that we abandoned there, the people who want and need a strong America, well, we're just extremists, racists or whatever else Obama's water carriers want to label us as.

Another pop quiz. How many Americans do you think favor our troops dying on a regular basis to help the Kurds? Americans are about themselves. They're good for charities, giving blood, etc. But their average attitude regarding risking American lives to save another group of people (even thousands) is not a good one. I do think it's because many never forgot about Vietnam. How many troops did we lose in that unofficial war?
We lost over 50,000 troops in Vietnam, but the real reason for the antiwar movement was that the baby boomers didn't want to go off and fight. When the draft ended, the movement ended, even though the war didn't. The selfishness of the boomers is legendary, but most Americans are willing to fight for a cause, even if it isn't one that directly benefits us. We just don't like being set up to lose.