Well, that could have gone better.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-iraq-withdrawal-idUSTRE7BH03320111218
Quote
Last U.S. troops leave Iraq, ending war
By Patrick Markey and Joseph Logan
BAGHDAD | Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:02am EST
(Reuters) - The last convoy of U.S. soldiers pulled out of Iraq on Sunday, ending nearly nine years of war that cost almost 4,500 American and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and left a country still grappling with political uncertainty.
The war launched in March 2003 with missiles striking Baghdad to oust dictator Saddam Hussein closes with a fragile democracy still facing insurgents, sectarian tensions and the challenge of defining its place in the Arab region.
The final column of around 100 mostly U.S. military MRAP armored vehicles carrying 500 U.S. troops trundled across the southern Iraq desert through the night along an empty highway and across the Kuwaiti border.
Honking their horns, the last batch of around 25 American military trucks and tractor trailers carrying Bradley fighting vehicles crossed the border early on Sunday, their crews waving at fellow troops along the route.
"I just can't wait to call my wife and kids and let them know I am safe," Rodolfo Ruiz said as the border came into sight. Soon afterwards, he told his men the mission was over, "Hey guys, you made it."
For President Barack Obama, the military pullout is the fulfillment of an election promise to bring troops home from a conflict inherited from his predecessor, the most unpopular war since Vietnam and one that tainted America's standing worldwide.
For Iraqis, the U.S. departure brings a sense of sovereignty but feeds nagging fears their country may slide once again into the kind of sectarian violence that killed thousands of people at its peak in 2006-2007.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Shi'ite-led government still struggles with a delicate power-sharing arrangement between Shi'ite, Kurdish and Sunni parties, leaving Iraq vulnerable to meddling by Sunni Arab nations and Shi'ite Iran.
The intensity of violence and suicide bombings has subsided. But a stubborn Sunni Islamist insurgency and rival Shi'ite militias remain a threat, carrying out almost daily attacks, often on Iraqi government and security officials.
Iraq says its forces can contain the violence but they lack capabilities in areas such as air defense and intelligence gathering. A deal for several thousand U.S. troops to stay on as trainers fell apart over the sensitive issue of legal immunity.
For many Iraqis security remains a worry - but no more than jobs and getting access to power in a country whose national grid provides only a few hours of electricity a day despite massive oil potential in the OPEC country.
"We don't think about America... We think about electricity, jobs, our oil, our daily problems," said Abbas Jaber, a government employee in Baghdad. "They left chaos."
GOING HOME
After Obama announced in October that troops would come home by the end of the year as scheduled, the number of U.S. military bases was whittled down quickly as hundreds of troops and trucks carrying equipment headed south to the Kuwaiti border.
U.S. forces, which had ended combat missions in 2010, paid $100,000 a month to tribal sheikhs to secure stretches of the highways leading south to reduce the risk of roadside bombings and attacks on the last convoys.
At the height of the war, more than 170,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq at more than 500 bases. By Saturday, there were fewer than 3,000 troops, and one base.
At COB Adder, as dusk fell before the departure of the last convoy, one group of soldiers slapped barbecue sauce on slabs of ribs brought in from Kuwait and laid them on grills alongside hotdogs and sausages.
The last troops flicked on the lights studding their MRAP vehicles and stacked flak jackets and helmets in neat piles, ready for the final departure for Kuwait and then home.
"A good chunk of me is happy to leave. I spent 31 months in this country," said Sgt. Steven Schirmer, 25, after three tours of Iraq since 2007. "It almost seems I can have a life now, though I know I am probably going to Afghanistan in 2013. Once these wars end I wonder what I will end up doing."
NEIGHBOURS KEEP WATCH
U.S. and foreign companies are already helping Iraq develop the vast potential of the world's fourth-largest oil reserves, but its economy needs investment in all sectors, from hospitals to infrastructure.
Iran and Turkey, major investors in Iraq, will be watching with Gulf nations to see how it handles its sectarian and ethnic tensions, as the crisis in neighboring Syria threatens to spill over its borders.
The fall of Saddam allowed the long-suppressed Shi'ite majority to rise to power. The Shi'ite-led government has drawn the country closer to neighboring Iran and Syria's Bashar al-Assad, who is struggling to put down a nine-month uprising.
Iraq's Sunni minority are chafing under what they see as the
increasingly authoritarian control of Maliki's Shi'ite coalition. Some local leaders are already pushing mainly Sunni provinces to demand more autonomy from Baghdad.
The main Sunni political bloc Iraqiya said on Saturday that it was temporarily suspending its participation in the parliament to protest against what it said was Maliki's unwillingness to deliver on power-sharing.
A dispute between the semi-autonomous Kurdish region and Maliki's central government over oil and territory is also brewing, and is a potential flashpoint after the buffer of the American military presence is gone.
"There is little to suggest that Iraq's government will manage -- or be willing to -- get itself out of the current stalemate," said Gala Riani, an analyst at IHS Global Insight.
"The perennial divisive issues that have become part of the fabric of Iraqi politics, such as divisions with Kurdistan and Sunni suspicions of the government, are also likely to persist."
(Additional reporting by Rania El Gamal; writing by Patrick Markey; Editing by Tim Pearce)
"Ending war"?
Does it mean:
(i) terrorism was annihilated, or
(ii) terrorism has surrendered, or
(iii) America negotiated and signed a peace treaty with terrorism, or
(iv) America unilaterally and unconditionally capitulated to terrorism, or
(v) there was no real war and all of this was America's PR bullshit?
The Weapon of Mass Destruction was found and destroyed. The rusty old gas shell is no more.
Peace with honor.
We were only 45 minutes from Armageddon, but now we can breathe a sigh of relief as there are no nutty Islamic countries with WMD anymore :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 04:27:16 AM
"Ending war"?
Does it mean:
(i) terrorism was annihilated, or
(ii) terrorism has surrendered, or
(iii) America negotiated and signed a peace treaty with terrorism, or
(iv) America unilaterally and unconditionally capitulated to terrorism, or
(v) there was no real war and all of this was America's PR bullshit?
There was a war in Iraq. That war has ended, seems pretty simple to me.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 04:27:16 AM
"Ending war"?
Does it mean:
(i) terrorism was annihilated, or
(ii) terrorism has surrendered, or
(iii) America negotiated and signed a peace treaty with terrorism, or
(iv) America unilaterally and unconditionally capitulated to terrorism, or
(v) there was no real war and all of this was America's PR bullshit?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft2.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSxuOqUSLZ1wrRpGQegfzRv82NN-GN1WpiaWMQcUJ5mK3fwcWoY&hash=5475870ea9e70ef43bd9e453d3ef7aa0af20289e)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 18, 2011, 04:56:29 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 04:27:16 AM
"Ending war"?
Does it mean:
(i) terrorism was annihilated, or
(ii) terrorism has surrendered, or
(iii) America negotiated and signed a peace treaty with terrorism, or
(iv) America unilaterally and unconditionally capitulated to terrorism, or
(v) there was no real war and all of this was America's PR bullshit?
There was a war in Iraq. That war has ended, seems pretty simple to me.
A war, like sex, needs two - you can be at war "with X", not "in X" (by the same token "I had sex at home today. I was alone." is not a proper expression.)
The war ends when one of the parties is destroyed or surrenders, or the parties sign a peace treaty. I am asking what the other party that America has been at war with is and that war with which ended
only now.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 05:05:38 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 18, 2011, 04:56:29 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 04:27:16 AM
"Ending war"?
Does it mean:
(i) terrorism was annihilated, or
(ii) terrorism has surrendered, or
(iii) America negotiated and signed a peace treaty with terrorism, or
(iv) America unilaterally and unconditionally capitulated to terrorism, or
(v) there was no real war and all of this was America's PR bullshit?
There was a war in Iraq. That war has ended, seems pretty simple to me.
A war, like sex, needs two - you can be at war "with X", not "in X" (by the same token "I had sex at home today. I was alone." is not a proper expression.)
The war ends when one of the parties is destroyed or surrenders, or the parties sign a peace treaty. I am asking what the other party that America has been at war with is and that war with which ended only now.
Well, this a rather arbitrary end date so I would argue that no war ended just now. I would say that the war with AQI and the Sunni rebels ended in a US victory already. The government we've installed seems relatively stable. Some violent insurgent activity remains, but does not raise to the level that can be termed civil war in my opinion.
Ok so there was no war that ended now. Gotcha.
For once, Marty is spot on.
The only war which ended there is probably the long Iran-Iraq conflict for regional supremacy. Good job, America.
Quote from: Tamas on December 18, 2011, 06:45:39 AMThe only war which ended there is probably the long Iran-Iraq conflict for regional supremacy. Good job, America.
Meh, we already did the heavy lifting on that one by handing it straight to Iran.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 18, 2011, 05:27:16 AM
Well, this a rather arbitrary end date so I would argue that no war ended just now. I would say that the war with AQI and the Sunni rebels ended in a US victory already. The government we've installed seems relatively stable. Some violent insurgent activity remains, but does not raise to the level that can be termed civil war in my opinion.
You're a fucking idiot. As I've been asking since 2004, please go curl up in a corner and die already.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 05:05:38 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 18, 2011, 04:56:29 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 04:27:16 AM
"Ending war"?
Does it mean:
(i) terrorism was annihilated, or
(ii) terrorism has surrendered, or
(iii) America negotiated and signed a peace treaty with terrorism, or
(iv) America unilaterally and unconditionally capitulated to terrorism, or
(v) there was no real war and all of this was America's PR bullshit?
There was a war in Iraq. That war has ended, seems pretty simple to me.
A war, like sex, needs two - you can be at war "with X", not "in X" (by the same token "I had sex at home today. I was alone." is not a proper expression.)
The war ends when one of the parties is destroyed or surrenders, or the parties sign a peace treaty. I am asking what the other party that America has been at war with is and that war with which ended only now.
Sex can have three Marty. In this case that's Iran, and Iran is not spent yet. Therefor your entire rant lacks the rational basis necessary for cogent analysis.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 04:27:16 AM
(v) there was no real war and all of this was America's PR bullshit?
Settle down now, dime-store Baudrillard.
It is rather stupid to say the war ended with the last US troops leaving.
Kind of the other way around - the last US troops are leaving because the war ended quite a while ago. At least in theory.
Why does an embassy need 15,000 workers?
Quote from: Fate on December 18, 2011, 01:16:27 PM
Why does an embassy need 15,000 workers?
They need a lot of people at the ready, so just in case this time they can really thoroughly shred those documents.
Quote from: Fate on December 18, 2011, 01:16:27 PM
Why does an embassy need 15,000 workers?
I think all our embassies need 15,000 workers.
Quote from: Berkut on December 18, 2011, 12:54:13 PM
It is rather stupid to say the war ended with the last US troops leaving.
Kind of the other way around - the last US troops are leaving because the war ended quite a while ago. At least in theory.
Quite, if the definition of a war ending means the last troops leaving a country that it defeated, then we're still fighting WW2...
Quote from: Fate on December 18, 2011, 01:16:27 PM
Why does an embassy need 15,000 workers?
If it is anything like state government they'll need some jobs for important peoples' friends, relatives, those owed favors, and then some jobs for people who have to actually do the work.
:rolleyes:
Agree with Marty that it's silly to call this the end of any war.
Disagree with Marty that wars only end when the antagonists sign a peace treaty.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsimg.bbc.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F45475000%2Fjpg%2F_45475285_soviet1989466.jpg&hash=3f08321a5b5a18265317860f7acd5cf5e194d462)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F57395000%2Fjpg%2F_57395574_013548941-1.jpg&hash=0b1ebfd9e00c13bbc63f8cea4d2d3b3e4e345b40)
How long will it take for the country to fall into the hands of their enemies ? :hmm:
I imagine that the Iranians will be rolling in within the month.
It's already in enemy hands.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2011, 03:16:57 PM
Disagree with Marty that wars only end when the antagonists sign a peace treaty.
Good I never said anythin of that sort.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2011, 04:09:53 PM
It's already in enemy hands.
It was in enemy hands the moment Garner was fired and replaced by Bremer.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 06:56:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2011, 03:16:57 PM
Disagree with Marty that wars only end when the antagonists sign a peace treaty.
Good I never said anythin of that sort.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 05:05:38 AM
The war ends when one of the parties is destroyed or surrenders, or the parties sign a peace treaty.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 18, 2011, 07:13:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2011, 04:09:53 PM
It's already in enemy hands.
It was in enemy hands the moment Garner was fired and replaced by Bremer.
To be fair, it didn't help when the enemy took the White House.
Quote from: Neil on December 18, 2011, 04:07:58 PM
I imagine that the Iranians will be rolling in within the month.
Ok Martim.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 18, 2011, 02:21:56 AM
Well, that could have gone better.
Maybe, but it sure as hell could have gone alot worse. It is a good thing whenever our people get taken out of there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2011, 07:19:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 06:56:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2011, 03:16:57 PM
Disagree with Marty that wars only end when the antagonists sign a peace treaty.
Good I never said anythin of that sort.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 05:05:38 AM
The war ends when one of the parties is destroyed or surrenders, or the parties sign a peace treaty.
So when was the end of the Iraq war?
Edit: Yesterday the largest party in Parliament, Ayad Allawi's party, walked out and apparently are now boycotting Parliament. They're the main Sunni party. Surprisingly unrelatedly, Maliki's issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni Vice President on allegations of terrorism (in particular that his security detail was plotting to assasinate Maliki and that he was the mastermind)
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2011, 08:52:27 PM
So when was the end of the Iraq war?
I give up, when?
It may be a misnomer to say that this marks the end of the war. However, it is certainly an important milestone, psychologically and militarily, and quibbling over what to call it is probably not the most important thing to take away from the article.
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2011, 08:00:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 18, 2011, 04:07:58 PM
I imagine that the Iranians will be rolling in within the month.
Ok Martim.
How is Iranian dominance not the most likely scenario?
The country is choke full of shiitas, with an added minority of sunnins and kurds, and these three has been happily opressing and murdering each other.
They did so even while the US military scrambled left and right, trying to contain a shitstorm their government unleashed upon them with the invasion order.
It only stopped when the US started paying tribute... I mean started financing local tribes to keep the peace.
Quote from: Tamas on December 19, 2011, 06:28:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2011, 08:00:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 18, 2011, 04:07:58 PM
I imagine that the Iranians will be rolling in within the month.
Ok Martim.
How is Iranian dominance not the most likely scenario?
The country is choke full of shiitas, with an added minority of sunnins and kurds, and these three has been happily opressing and murdering each other.
They did so even while the US military scrambled left and right, trying to contain a shitstorm their government unleashed upon them with the invasion order.
It only stopped when the US started paying tribute... I mean started financing local tribes to keep the peace.
Do all Sunni get along? Do all Christians?
Iraq has twice as much oil as Iran and thus has the potential to be very rich once they get back on their feet. Why would a population of rich Arab Shiites want to be told what to do by Iranian Shiites?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 07:16:47 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 19, 2011, 06:28:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2011, 08:00:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 18, 2011, 04:07:58 PM
I imagine that the Iranians will be rolling in within the month.
Ok Martim.
How is Iranian dominance not the most likely scenario?
The country is choke full of shiitas, with an added minority of sunnins and kurds, and these three has been happily opressing and murdering each other.
They did so even while the US military scrambled left and right, trying to contain a shitstorm their government unleashed upon them with the invasion order.
It only stopped when the US started paying tribute... I mean started financing local tribes to keep the peace.
Do all Sunni get along? Do all Christians?
Iraq has twice as much oil as Iran and thus has the potential to be very rich once they get back on their feet. Why would a population of rich Arab Shiites want to be told what to do by Iranian Shiites?
Because they'll need power and stability to get and keep those riches.
Sure, shiites may very well introduce a Saddam-like authoriter regime to keep everyone in line, but then who would be their only ally in the region?
Yes.
Quote from: Tamas on December 19, 2011, 06:28:48 AM
How is Iranian dominance not the most likely scenario?
Because the Iranians are a bunch of incompetent idiots mostly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 19, 2011, 05:01:42 AM
I give up, when?
I was interested in your view. You said that this isn't the end of the war and Marty's description of treaties or total destruction of enemies ending wars wasn't helpful. So when did the war end? Has it ended?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 19, 2011, 11:34:18 AM
I was interested in your view. You said that this isn't the end of the war and Marty's description of treaties or total destruction of enemies ending wars wasn't helpful. So when did the war end? Has it ended?
No clue.
My statement about wars ending was based on the Korean War and the three Arab-Israeli wars, none of which ended in the ways mentioned by Marty.
Quote from: Tamas on December 19, 2011, 08:31:29 AM
Because they'll need power and stability to get and keep those riches.
Sure, shiites may very well introduce a Saddam-like authoriter regime to keep everyone in line, but then who would be their only ally in the region?
Yes.
You are moving the goal posts here.
Being potential allies of Iran is not the same as becoming an Iranian puppet or having Iranian forces roll in and take over.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2011, 08:52:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2011, 07:19:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 06:56:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2011, 03:16:57 PM
Disagree with Marty that wars only end when the antagonists sign a peace treaty.
Good I never said anythin of that sort.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 05:05:38 AM
The war ends when one of the parties is destroyed or surrenders, or the parties sign a peace treaty.
So when was the end of the Iraq war?
Edit: Yesterday the largest party in Parliament, Ayad Allawi's party, walked out and apparently are now boycotting Parliament. They're the main Sunni party. Surprisingly unrelatedly, Maliki's issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni Vice President on allegations of terrorism (in particular that his security detail was plotting to assasinate Maliki and that he was the mastermind)
Why isn't any of this in the news? Or did I miss the front page drudge story...
Quote from: Fate on December 19, 2011, 12:09:39 PM
Why isn't any of this in the news? Or did I miss the front page drudge story...
The walk out is actually mentioned in Tim's article. They've now expanded it into a boycott.
The arrest warrant story's here:
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/12/17/183118.html
It's been confirmed by the Minister of Interior. That story also has allegations that the government have placed armoured vehicles outside the homes of senior Iraqiya party members.
This is the assasination attempt he's being blamed for, you'll note they're effectively accusing him of being al-Qaeda:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=143063072
It's not in the news because Iraq isn't in the news and for the UK and the US it was always all about us. I worry that we won't learn any lessons from Iraq because there's still very little interest or acknowledgement of the Iraqi perspective.
Iraqis sure don't waste any time. I guess the VP's trial has already been scheduled for Wednesday, with an execution to follow on Thursday.
Quote from: DGuller on December 19, 2011, 01:39:11 PM
Iraqis sure don't waste any time. I guess the VP's trial has already been scheduled for Wednesday, with an execution to follow on Thursday.
Heh.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 04:27:16 AM
"Ending war"?
Does it mean:
(i) terrorism was annihilated, or
(ii) terrorism has surrendered, or
(iii) America negotiated and signed a peace treaty with terrorism, or
(iv) America unilaterally and unconditionally capitulated to terrorism, or
(v) there was no real war and all of this was America's PR bullshit?
There never was a war against "terrorism", there was a war aganst "Terror"
And BTW America won. Terror suffered a fatal seizure, and was replaced after a brief leadership struggle by Serious Anxiety. Sadly, the moderates backing Mild Trepidation did not prevail.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 19, 2011, 06:59:56 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2011, 04:27:16 AM
"Ending war"?
Does it mean:
(i) terrorism was annihilated, or
(ii) terrorism has surrendered, or
(iii) America negotiated and signed a peace treaty with terrorism, or
(iv) America unilaterally and unconditionally capitulated to terrorism, or
(v) there was no real war and all of this was America's PR bullshit?
There never was a war against "terrorism", there was a ware aganst "Terror"
And BTW America won. Terror suffered a fatal seizure, and was replaced after a brief leadership struggle by Serious Anxiety. Sadly, the moderates backing Mild Trepidation did not prevail.
Victory is ours.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 19, 2011, 06:59:56 PMTerror suffered a fatal seizure, and was replaced after a brief leadership struggle by Serious Anxiety.
No role for High Anxiety? :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_uAArEDIq2gQ%2FScu637pXrcI%2FAAAAAAAAATY%2FzZt6JafZRcs%2Fs400%2FHighAnxiety.jpg&hash=2497308fe282c7a4067898404ec4e1c027304c47)
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 19, 2011, 12:41:08 PM
It's not in the news because Iraq isn't in the news and for the UK and the US it was always all about us. I worry that we won't learn any lessons from Iraq because there's still very little interest or acknowledgement of the Iraqi perspective.
"I have a vested interest in being ungovernable." There, I cracked the code.
Brutal occupation of civilian populations FTW.
Here we go.
QuoteBaghdad (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 deadliest attack was a suicide car bombing outside the offices of the Integrity Commission, the country's main anti-corruption body. At least 23 people were killed and 43 others were wounded in the explosion, which also damaged part of the building, police officials said.
The attacks targeted civilians across all walks of life. One took place at a market. Another, at a school as children were arriving.
CNN's Arwa Damon in Baghdad described it as a "nightmare scenario," eerily reminiscent of earlier days of the Iraq war.
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 that 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.
Finance Minister Rafie al-Issawi told CNN he does not believe the violence is directly connected to the latest political developments, "but there is a good environment for terrorists to be active in these bad circumstances."
Terrorists "will justify their criminal activities" and argue that the solution to Iraq's woes "isn't in the political process," said al-Issawi, a member of the Sunni-backed Iraqiya minority political bloc.
The seemingly coordinated explosions Thursday struck during the height of morning rush hour, hitting a number of Baghdad's primarily mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods.
There have been no immediate claims of responsibility, though the attacks resemble previous bombings that have been claimed by both Sunni and Shiite insurgents as well as al Qaeda in Iraq.
At the Medical City hospital in central Baghdad, doctors treated the wounded whose bodies were peppered with what appeared to be shrapnel from explosions.
Images of bloodied, battered bodies and destroyed storefronts and homes were broadcast on Iraqi television stations.
While violence in Iraq has fallen off in recent years, the latest spate of attacks are among the worst since August when a series of coordinated bombings killed at least 75 people in 17 Iraqi cities.
The attacks come amid heightened sectarian tensions, raising fears that the political turmoil in Iraq could spark a return of sectarian bloodshed that nearly ripped the country apart during the height of the war.
Al-Hashimi has denied the charges against him, saying the accusations are politically motivated amid the rivalry between his Sunni-backed Iraqiya minority political bloc and al-Maliki's Shiite majority bloc.
The warrant for al-Hashimi's arrest was issued just days after Iraqiya suspended its participation in Parliament, claiming it was being cut out of the political process by al-Maliki.
The prime minister has said failing to hand over al-Hashimi or allowing him to flee to another country "could cause problems."
Al-Issawi, the finance minister, told CNN that before U.S. troops left, Iraqi officials made clear their fears of what could happen.
"So many times we warned the Americans, both the political and security situation (are) very fragile. Unfortunately, no one listened."
In a speech this month about bringing the U.S. troops home, President Barack Obama said, "Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. "
"There can be no fuller expression of America's support for self-determination than our leaving Iraq to its people. That says something about who we are," Obama added.
Now the real test for Iraq starts.
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2011, 11:08:13 AM
Now the real test for Iraq starts.
Yep. But remember Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2011, 11:08:13 AM
Now the real test for Iraq starts.
Just remember, this is all somehow our fault.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 22, 2011, 01:03:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2011, 11:08:13 AM
Now the real test for Iraq starts.
Just remember, this is all somehow our fault.
Unless it works out. Then it will be in spite of our meddling.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 22, 2011, 01:03:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2011, 11:08:13 AM
Now the real test for Iraq starts.
Just remember, this is all somehow our fault.
Glad to hear you're finally admitting it.
Quote from: mongers on December 22, 2011, 01:16:15 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 22, 2011, 01:03:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2011, 11:08:13 AM
Now the real test for Iraq starts.
Just remember, this is all somehow our fault.
Glad to hear you're finally admitting it.
Of course, had the Euros not gone around colonizing these poor bastards none of this would have happened.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 22, 2011, 01:18:10 PM
Of course, had the Euros not gone around colonizing these poor bastards none of this would have happened.
I blame the Medes. The place has never been the same since the fall of Nineveh.
Jonah was right about Nineveh.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fturmsegler.net%2Fimg%2F2009%2Fambassador_kosh.jpg&hash=0ff3c5383c20d1944ea5fa32757bc424845ae50a)
And So It Begins
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16283562
QuoteIraqi PM asks Kurds to hand over Vice-President Hashemi
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has urged the Kurdish authorities in northern Iraq to hand over fugitive Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi.
An arrest warrant was issued for Iraq's most senior Sunni Arab politician on Monday on terrorism charges.
Mr Hashemi denies the charges and his entire political bloc is boycotting parliament and the cabinet.
Tensions between Sunnis and the Shia Arab majority appear to be coming to a head, a BBC correspondent says.
Mr Hashemi is currently in Irbil, under the protection of the Kurdistan regional government. The warrant was issued a day after US troops pulled out of Iraq.
US Vice-President Joe Biden has urged Iraqi leaders to work together to avert renewed sectarian strife.
Mr Maliki, a Shia Arab, said on live TV that he would dismiss ministers belonging to Mr Hashemi's bloc, al-Iraqiyya, if they did not lift their boycott.
He invited all political factions to hold talks to try to resolve the crisis.
Otherwise, he said, Iraq could in future have a majority government which any person or bloc would be welcome to join to "take the country forward in a positive direction".
In a statement quoted by Reuters news agency, al-Iraqiyya rejected the invitation to talks, saying Mr Maliki himself was "the main reason for the crisis and the problem".
Asked about Mr Hashemi's call for the Arab League to oversee any investigation into the allegations, Mr Maliki said this was a criminal issue in Iraq.
He saw no reason why the Arab League or the UN should intervene in an Iraqi criminal case, he said.
"We do not accept any interference in Iraqi justice," he added. "We gave Saddam a fair trial, and we will give Hashemi a fair trial too."
Mr Hashemi denies allegations that he funded attacks on government and security officials during Iraq's bloody insurgency.
On Monday evening, Iraqi television showed purported confessions from his bodyguards, but the vice-president says that they were false and "politicised".
He told reporters in Irbil on Tuesday: "I swear to God that I never committed a sin when it comes to Iraqi blood."
He said he would be willing to face trial in Kurdistan.
Mr Maliki went on TV after speaking on the phone to Mr Biden.
The US vice-president "stressed the urgent need for the prime minister and the leaders of the other major blocs to meet and work through their differences together", the White House said.
Mr Maliki leads a government of national unity in a fragile power-sharing deal that has lasted a year.
Iraq has a majority Shia population, but the areas adjacent to the Syrian border are almost entirely Sunni-dominated.
BBC Middle East correspondent Jim Muir says Sunni-majority provinces which had previously shown little interest in setting up Kurdistan-style autonomous areas have begun to embrace that idea.
This worries the prime minister, who fears an alliance between Sunni areas of Iraq and a possible future Sunni-controlled Syria, should the government of Bashar al-Assad fall, our correspondent adds.
I suppose they could have waited a few days before going after each other like that.
So far Hillary hasn't shown me much as SecState. If she can talk this down without spending *too* much money I will tip my hat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2011, 03:30:29 PM
So far Hillary hasn't shown me much as SecState. If she can talk this down without spending *too* much money I will tip my hat.
How much of Hillary do you actually want to see? :x
Iraq falling apart already. Al Maliki arrested some of the top Sunni leaders on terrorist charges, others are in hiding. Government is or will probably fracture even more. Radicals are seizing a chance to cause mayhem. Iraqi people angry and disillusioned.
Quote from: KRonn on December 22, 2011, 06:00:12 PM
Iraq falling apart already. Al Maliki arrested some of the top Sunni leaders on terrorist charges, others are in hiding. Government is or will probably fracture even more. Radicals are seizing a chance to cause mayhem. Iraqi people angry and disillusioned.
Remember the scaremongering from Republicans that if you set a timetable for withdrawal, the terrorists will wait until we pull out to strike? Turns out that having us pull out was the worst thing that could've happened to terrorists.
Quote from: KRonn on December 22, 2011, 06:00:12 PM
Iraq falling apart already. Al Maliki arrested some of the top Sunni leaders on terrorist charges, others are in hiding. Government is or will probably fracture even more. Radicals are seizing a chance to cause mayhem. Iraqi people angry and disillusioned.
It's not falling apart. It's strengthening it's structure. It's not a Democratic structure, but does anyone really at this point think that it would be?
Question for any one of you history buffs who may know it, how long were deployments for soldiers and marines during the Vietnam war? Did it change as the war went on like in Iraq or was it the same the whole time?
Depends on the branch, etc., but Army generally served 12-month tours while Marines served 6-month tours, though were often encouraged to serve an extended 12-13 month period instead. I seem to recall that the tours started off somewhat haphazardly as the US wasn't certain of how long the commitment would be, but it eventually became standardized to the above level.
Quote from: DGuller on December 22, 2011, 06:26:35 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 22, 2011, 06:00:12 PM
Iraq falling apart already. Al Maliki arrested some of the top Sunni leaders on terrorist charges, others are in hiding. Government is or will probably fracture even more. Radicals are seizing a chance to cause mayhem. Iraqi people angry and disillusioned.
Remember the scaremongering from Republicans that if you set a timetable for withdrawal, the terrorists will wait until we pull out to strike? Turns out that having us pull out was the worst thing that could've happened to terrorists.
How can you say that when the terrorists just struck today in a big way.
Quote from: citizen k on December 22, 2011, 07:33:58 PM
How can you say that when the terrorists just struck today in a big way.
I think Guller was trying to make a joke about the terrorist accusation against the VP. :secret:
Quote from: Ender on December 21, 2011, 11:12:26 PM
Brutal occupation of civilian populations FTW.
I think that's something that we can all agree on. But why would you add the word 'civilian'? It's not important at all.
Quote from: Valmy on December 22, 2011, 01:23:34 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 22, 2011, 01:18:10 PM
Of course, had the Euros not gone around colonizing these poor bastards none of this would have happened.
I blame the Medes. The place has never been the same since the fall of Nineveh.
I don't know. They were certainly damaged by Islam and by the Mongols, but their situation didn't become hopeless until the West decided to make the world safe for democracy.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 22, 2011, 07:24:54 PM
Depends on the branch, etc., but Army generally served 12-month tours while Marines served 6-month tours, though were often encouraged to serve an extended 12-13 month period instead. I seem to recall that the tours started off somewhat haphazardly as the US wasn't certain of how long the commitment would be, but it eventually became standardized to the above level.
I think it also depended on if you were volunteer or a draftee. 12-6 months is typical I think. I've heard 8 months thrown around a lot.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 22, 2011, 01:03:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2011, 11:08:13 AM
Now the real test for Iraq starts.
Just remember, this is all somehow our fault.
You realize that it really is, right?