digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

British Leave Basra; Violence Drops by 90 Percent

dailykos.com — "The thing you have to understand about an occupation like the one in Iraq, is that much of the violence results from the unrest that occurs when people have no sense of a permanent presence of authority. At the risk of going completely unscientific here, it ’s like a class that won’t behave for a substitute teacher."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • QuixoticNoob, on 11/18/2007, -21/+137Hay, I have an idea the U.S. should leave too, maybe it would go down another 90%
    • SEN5241, on 11/18/2007, -10/+24A 90% reduction sounds impressive. Of course, no one considers the option that the insurgents left Basra because there are still American troops to harass in other parts of Iraq.
      • iticu, on 11/18/2007, -23/+2Where does it say Americans left?
        • SEN5241, on 11/18/2007, -1/+23Uh... it doesn't. That was my point. The American troops were never in Basra -- the British took control there after the initial invasion.
      • warriorscot, on 11/18/2007, -0/+6That is unlikely for a number of reasons, that 90% was almost exclusively people taking pot shots at the resupply convoys for the palace, Britain also didnt leave basra they left the palace in the centre of the city and still control the airport base, they are however leaving allot of the ground work to the Iriaqi army and police who should be the ones doing it everywhere in Iraq anyway.
      • AlexBellisBrown, on 11/18/2007, -2/+4Now Bush should take note of this excellent way to stop insurgency..... Just leave
    • thetin, on 11/18/2007, -2/+4Yes. At the very least no americans would die for this nonsense.
    • sotopheavy, on 11/18/2007, -2/+4Devil's Advocate: REPORTED violence drops by 90%?
    • IllBeBack, on 11/18/2007, -3/+3"Hay"? O RLY?
    • bingo, on 11/19/2007, -2/+2In principle I agree, but I object to the phrase "maybe it would go down another 90%." That just doesn't make any sense.
      • HisTumness, on 11/19/2007, -1/+1What doesn't make sense about it? If it's gone down 90% then it's now at 10% what it used to be. Now if it goes down another 90% from that, it will be at 0.1% what it was in the beginning.
        • yodaj007, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2What is 10 times .9? 9. 10 - 9 = 1, not 0.1.
          • HisTumness, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1*****, you're right. I'm a moron. Anyway, it still makes sense for something to go down "another 90%"
    • spankaccount, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1The violence started dropping way before the British started their pull out. Read the news papers kids...
  • Qpok, on 11/18/2007, -38/+54Hardly true.
    "Signs ordering women to cover up appear throughout the city. One woman, an Iraqi female activist from Basra, says the notices even threaten death. One banner, she says, said unveiled women could be murdered and no one could remove their bodies from the street." I doupt this is the freedom the ordinary people want. Now that the troops have left the strict religious leaders have once again taken order.
    "Public parties are banned. Selling musical CDs is forbidden in shops. Those who sell or consume alcohol face recrimination, even death. Artists and performers are severely restricted and even labeled as heretics. A famous city landmark, a replica of the Lion of Babylon statue that stood here for decades was blown up by militants in July. It was considered idolatrous, according to the strict interpretation of Islam."
    • allywilson, on 11/18/2007, -13/+30Wow that was...pointless. Why did you appear to be quoting - when no source was listed? Nevermind a credible one.

      "Qpok is actually quite correct and knows everything about the current situation in Basra." - see what I did there?
    • Nefarion, on 11/18/2007, -3/+20Further, who gives a ***** if Qpok's comments were confirmed true?

      Let the Iraqis run their own joint the way they want. What Qpok has described is no worse than your average day in Riyadh?
      • Beveridge89, on 11/18/2007, -4/+6The will of the majority should not interfere with the rights of a minority. Its like you've never lived in a Western democracy.
        • Fordi, on 11/18/2007, -2/+10'cept they don't. And they like it that way. Who are we to tell them differently?
        • brownb2, on 11/18/2007, -0/+7Besides, when their society is really ready to come out of its dark ages it will - it's just the school bullies running the joint because the teacher left the classroom. They will have their civil wars and revolution when they are fed up enough, and we shouldn't get involved lest they blame us for their own internal problems.
        • Beveridge89, on 11/18/2007, -3/+2Iraqis arent a herd. There are those who don't want Sharia law, who don't want to have their lives dictated to. We aren't telling those people differently, we are telling the militias they have no right to tell people how to live.
    • Kelmon, on 11/18/2007, -8/+4Widely reported to be true (for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7095209.stm ). We moved in, let the militias take over and left. Good job. The problem, aside from invading in the first place, was that we were to spineless to do something about the militias and just let them have their way because it was less trouble that way. I honestly hope the US forces don't make the same mistake.
    • KunalHS, on 11/18/2007, -8/+4Dear QPOK - I don't need any proof. What you say can be very true. BUT ..... - Thats the way these people are. Don't apply your civilized society's rule to these barbaric people.
      You have got only 1 option if you want Iraqi women to be free as women in US, UK. - Keep US forces there till end of the world. But at what cost to US economy ??
    • snypa, on 11/18/2007, -1/+11You said :"Now that the troops have left the strict religious leaders have once again taken order." But when previously did religious leaders rule in Iraq? Definitely not during Saddams time, where the nation was mostly secular. Though women were absed etc. by his regime.
    • blackjack75, on 11/18/2007, -3/+12I don't agree with women having to wear one clothing or another, but I certainly wouldn't send my troops in to change that. If Iraqi women want freedom let them fight for it, just like they did over here.
      • dudefaceguyman, on 11/19/2007, -1/+3Hah, if their ankles/face accidently show they get stoned and such. It's not a mere, "I wanna vote!" it's more of a "I wanna show my face in public!" completely different man. If they want change, they need help. They can't do it on their own, it's the simple fact. Nothing is gonna change unless another country intervenes. Not to say I completely agree with the Iraq war, only that it's their best chance at freedom. =|
      • Kelmon, on 11/19/2007, -1/+1Fight? How, precisely? In Basra, if you don't conform to what the militias expect of you then they either beat the crap out of you (if you're lucky) or kill you and your family. And this they will do based on rumor only. What do you expect the women to do? Form their own militias? That's a crazy statement.
    • ad33lshahid, on 11/18/2007, -0/+7you can't apply your own definition of what is right and what is wrong to everyone. there are plenty of people that DO want a religious state. stop equating freedom with scantily clad women. for some people freedom means the freedom to raise their children in a society that doesn't share the same values as the West.
    • source1984, on 11/18/2007, -2/+13From a Muslim perspective... U.S. troops will do nothing to make the situation better. NOTHING.

      This is a matter of religious interpretation. Now what you do is you allow moderate Muslims to gain some more influence. If its Shiite, have some big Imam come in. Ask Iran for help -- this is their expertise.

      In the end, women wearing veils IS NOT TH END OF THE WORLD. There are children dying in Africa for God's sake. Go deliver them food you American superheroes! Leave the feminist in Basra and the situation will slowly change itself. Basra is not Afghanistan.
      • dudefaceguyman, on 11/19/2007, -1/+3It's not wearing veils that I have a problem with. More power to them, I understand it's part of their culture. What I DO have a problem with is them getting stoned and such for ridiculous things like accidently showing your face/ankles. A lot of BS down there man.
        • kcasper, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2In that case you also have problems with all of the surrounding countries as well, ally or enemy.
      • luckykpolice, on 11/19/2007, -0/+3Children dying in Africa "IS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD."
    • whandsfield, on 11/18/2007, -1/+9Good thing America is still there to solve all the problems. I have an idea, let's fix some bridges in the US before we go off a-nation-building next time. Waste of lives and treasure, the whole damn enterprise.
    • thecatcantalk, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2We invaded, let them have their own elections, and they promptly elected a bunch of terrorists who want us dead. So there you are.
      If Iraqis want to live that way, why should we stop them? Oil is the only thing any of those countries have, that anyone else wants; they HAVE to sell their oil, no matter what sort of government they've got. If they want to have a revolution and earn their freedom from tyrants as we did, then fine. Trying to hand it to them by conquest clearly is never going to work.
      ***** it. Let's go home.
  • aussieNickuss, on 11/18/2007, -11/+104"it’s like a class that won’t behave for a substitute teacher." - That is the perfect analogy of the current occupation in Iraq.
    • MonkeyHugger, on 11/18/2007, -21/+3Well done dick face...how the hell does that make a difference?
    • lead2thehead, on 11/18/2007, -12/+5It would be a more accurate analogy if the teacher carried and M16 and killed students who didn't behave.

      ...Boy that would be a sweet job.
      • Retnuh730, on 11/18/2007, -1/+5We should report this guy to the FBI or something.
    • JesperL, on 11/18/2007, -3/+20Well, to be fair, the previous teacher was a bit of a douche.
      • Pritchard, on 11/18/2007, -1/+3So was the King of Britain. :-( We did something about it, and asked for help when we were ready :D Hell, the USA has trouble protecting its own freedoms these days...
    • marc123, on 11/18/2007, -8/+2NO NO NO!!! this analogy would only work if the "children" were from a really deprived part of town and the teacher was a really rich white guy who went around randomly and indiscriminately killing the kids and also stole all their dinner money every day for their entire lives, just because he could.
      • p0s3r, on 11/18/2007, -5/+8Yes, because thats what our troops do, go around randomly and indiscriminately killing people? Let me guess, you don't support the war, but you support the troops, right?
      • Zeonix, on 11/18/2007, -0/+3I didn't realize our troops were all rich white guys who murder people for the hell of it.

        Be quiet.
    • Orangey, on 11/18/2007, -0/+0How can you possibly have enough information to make that statement?? I'm not saying it's wrong I'm just saying you're probably making some huge assumptions in your head, that may or may not be right, to come to that conclusion
  • GuacamoleSan, on 11/18/2007, -16/+55But if the U.S. leaves, then all of our hard imperialism was for nothing
    • lead2thehead, on 11/18/2007, -11/+8It's only imperialism if you acquire territory. This is just a war.
      • iticu, on 11/18/2007, -5/+12It's nit even an official war, it's either just a invasion or an illegal war.
        • lead2thehead, on 11/18/2007, -5/+4Illegal? Not really. International laws are a joke. You can't just go around imposing laws on sovereign countries (not without starting a war anyway) so countries make friendly agreements with one another. They call them laws so people will take them more seriously, but you're pretty much on the honor system to keep your side of the agreement. If you break it, well... shame on you. But the international police aren't going to come and put you into international jail for violating international law because it isn't really a law. To call it illegal is a bit misleading.
          • Ramble, on 11/18/2007, -3/+5I think he meant it's illegal because Congress declared no war.
          • lead2thehead, on 11/18/2007, -3/+3Okay, well in that sense he's right. But I'm not sure that you could declare war in this case... because who would you declare war on? Iraq? We're not fighting the entire country... just a small percentage of its citizens.
          • p0s3r, on 11/18/2007, -5/+9If it's illegal, how come no one's taken the issue up at court? They've had 5 years.
          • jakeson2, on 11/18/2007, -1/+4Really now....citizens? It would seem to me that the Syrians, Iranians, the Saudis, and the others sneaking through the borders to fight the Americans trying to stop the rule of democracy in Iraq are NOT CITIZENS.
          • jetboyterp, on 11/18/2007, -0/+4@ramble

            Congress overwhelmingly approved military action in Iraq.
          • Fordi, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1Congress did not declare a war. They heartily approved of action in Iraq, but unless they actually *declare war*, according to the Constitution, they are approving of illegal action.
          • adnams, on 11/19/2007, -1/+1and i bet if Iran did it, it would quickly be considered illegal
      • macweirdo42, on 11/18/2007, -2/+8Wait, so you're saying we're doing all the work of an imperial power and yet aren't reaping the benefits? Man, what a rip-off.
      • mhearne, on 11/18/2007, -2/+5Not even a war, it's an occupation. The last time the U.S. Congress declared war was during WWII against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania (6/2/1942).

        I believe that the present hostilities in Iraq are being justified by the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which superseded the first and second War Powers Acts of 1941 and 1942. Please see:
        http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/ ...
        • Fordi, on 11/18/2007, -2/+2Then why is the president repeatedly saying that we're 'at war' when, by law, we are not?

          A: He's at war, and using the nation's military to implement it illegally.
    • ploke, on 11/18/2007, -3/+13it was not for nothing. Companies like Halliburton made a ton of taxpayer money off of it.
      • jakeson2, on 11/18/2007, -5/+4And the people who worked for Halliburton risk their lives right along with the armed forces there. Many are dying to help the Iraqis repair the war damage and the neglect of Saddam. After all he did build many palaces while ignoring his own people. I suppose he took the property of those buried in those mass grave found all over Iraq. I read a report of another mass grave found in Iraq this week. How nice the "Daily Kooks" thinks the way they do on this subject.
        • n0gnuz, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2I don't think the leadership of Haliburton or any other war industry corporation is risking *their* lives in Iraq. Risking *their employees* lives, yes.
  • sivsta, on 11/18/2007, -3/+16Basra still has extremist elements in it. We'll see how the violence fares over time. Also, it sucks if you are a woman there, I heard its just getting worse for them.
    • empraptor, on 11/18/2007, -1/+6How about it sucks if you're there at all? But really are we going to go around the world shooting people until there's no one left whose life sucks?
      • Kelmon, on 11/18/2007, -0/+4It should be noted that their lives sucked AFTER we invaded. It's not like we've improved things. If you're a woman in Basra today the invasion has made things WORSE.
        • Beveridge89, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1No, its essentially made it the same. Before there was no overt violence, but break a set of unjustified rules and you got killed. Of course, it wouldnt be like that it we actually stopped the militias imposing their rules, but apparently we never tried to do this.
  • Cymrubeats, on 11/18/2007, -11/+4http://digg.com/world_news/General_Basra_Violence_ ...

    Well, two days later is better than never i guess.
    • InSectWar, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1Thanks, i buried that one as a duplicate.
  • jetboyterp, on 11/18/2007, -15/+29How then do you explain violence in Anbar Province dropping dramatically after the troop surge?
    • skews13, on 11/18/2007, -4/+27my nephew just got back from ar-ramahdi,al-anbar.the way he puts it to me is it's like chasing drug dealers from one neighborhood to another.the insurgents there weren't passified.they simply picked up shop and moved to the outskirts of baghdad.it's the ultimate whack a mole game.it becomes an issue of strategy.not one of over whelming force.the latter only works against standing armies in the field
      • jetboyterp, on 11/18/2007, -7/+7Yeah, I've found differing opinions too from guys who have been there...not just in al-Anbar, but in and around Baghdad as well. Some agree with your nephew...that it's "whack-a-mole" (nice analogy, btw) and others who say the insurgency is dropping in numbers.

        All in all, and using Gen. Patreus' report as a base, things at least seem to be really improving in Iraq. Slowly, but improving. The frustrating part is how slow the Iraqi government has been in showing they can handle the situation.

        And this isn't pointed to you, but many others....The Iraq War has been over for quite a while. Saddam's Ba'athist regime has been eliminated. Saddam was tried and convicted in an Iraqi court, and hanged. Agree with the war or not...Iraq must become a stable democracy. To just pick up and leave would guarantee that wouldn't happen.
        • empraptor, on 11/18/2007, -5/+5Why must it become a stable democracy? Why is Iraq so important as opposed to the countless other nations that don't have stable democracies? We did what we went in there to do. Rather, there was nothing to do in the first place. There was no WMD. Who the ***** cares at this point. Stop putting us in debt and get out so they can fight it out and whoever's got the most political/military power can take over.
          • Beveridge89, on 11/18/2007, -3/+3Why should it be a stable democracy? Why should it be ruled by the people rather than despots? Why should it be governed under the only system we have which gurantees liberty? The question isnt why it should, the question is why it shouldn't.

            The people who waged this war might be hypocrites and liars, but that doesnt mean they are wrong about democracy being the only worthy system of government.
          • empraptor, on 11/19/2007, -1/+1If getting as many people/nations on the cureall the is democracy, then let's go do it somewhere we can do it with least effort and resources. Pick a country. Any country. Don't just send the troops in. Have some kind of coherent plan that actually gets us there. Chances are we're going to get better and faster results elsewhere.

            Why Iraq of all places? There's no WMD. Get out. Let someone who has power in the region take control. It's going to come to that anyway whether we're there or not. It's just that it'll be under the guise of democracy while assassinations and riots rule the political scene.
          • empraptor, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1EDIT: "If getting as many people/nations on democratic systems is the goal, ..."
          • Beveridge89, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2Because America is like all empires before it. It wants its influence in strategically useful countries. Nobodies pretending they are doing it for good and moral reasons, but on the whole, why not have democracy in some places rather than none?
        • skews13, on 11/18/2007, -1/+4i don't disagree with you on that.i do beleive though there will have to be some political alternative sooner or later.having had my family involved in this war,i don't for one claim to have all the answers.i just hope general petrieous is successful in his endeavor
        • Delphium226, on 11/18/2007, -0/+3Don't be surpirsed if the 'democracy' results in a Shia-led theocracy coming to power which then goes on to outlaw/rig all future elections. These things have a way of biting you in the ass.
    • blackacre, on 11/18/2007, -2/+1Because this is the substitute teacher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coach_Buzzcut
    • Adamande, on 11/18/2007, -3/+7"Ethnic cleansing". The success in the Anbar province is due to the fact that most shiites in the area left.
      • Adamande, on 11/18/2007, -0/+6Ok, great. Getting dugg down for telling the truth:
        "The number of Iraqis fleeing their homes has soared since the American troop increase began in February, according to data from two humanitarian groups, accelerating the partition of the country into sectarian enclaves."
        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/world/middleeast ...
        "What (Rick) Rowley and his cohorts found in Anbar is that the Sunnis cooperating with the U.S. have forced Shia residents of the province to relocate, and those who did (rather than die) are living in squalid conditions in camps outside Sunni areas"
        http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/1303/exactly-r ...
        "In any case, the mass migrations could mean that Iraq's political groups will have little incentive to compromise with one another, as they separate into their enclaves. For example, at least 761 families have settled in Baghdad after moving from Anbar Province and other Sunni-dominated areas to the west, according to Iraqi government statistics. The same is happening on the Sunni Arab end — there are reports of 50 families moving from Baghdad to the Sunni enclave of Falluja."
        http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/nws/nytimes32.h ...
        "And in Anbar Province, where there has been success, all of the Shiites are gone. They've simply split."
        http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,5 ...
    • Dustin00, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2There's more than 1 province -- as we focus on one, they move to the next.

      We're chasing our tail playing whack-a-mole.
  • basex, on 11/18/2007, -6/+13the problem now for Bush to leave Iraq it's a question of honor, he sees that as saying to the world that he made a mistake
    • rawkes, on 11/18/2007, -1/+15...but he did, everyone knows that already
      • leftykiller, on 11/18/2007, -14/+3Certainly within your false reality bubble.
        • archiesteel, on 11/18/2007, -3/+6"leftykiller" eh? Well, I'm sincerely sorry about your erectile dysfunction problems...
    • HolemCross, on 11/18/2007, -1/+8You are assuming that Bush still has honor.
    • DieterManstein, on 11/18/2007, -1/+3Gosh, honor? I wonder when and if he ever had one inch of it!
  • captbbq, on 11/18/2007, -8/+61If an insurgent kills a man in Basra and there no foreign troops to see it, recover the body, record the incident, does it really happen? Well, statistically speaking, apparently not.
    • blackjack75, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Is the british leave.. why would you call them "insurgents"?
    • Beveridge89, on 11/18/2007, -1/+2Because Insurgents attack Iraqis as well as troops? Pretend it says militias if it makes you happier, the point is the same.
    • source1984, on 11/18/2007, -2/+1Its still better off without the troops. Don't you get it. They ARE the targets. They WANT them there so they can hit them.
      • Beveridge89, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Nope. They want them out so they can control the place.
  • MonkeyHugger, on 11/18/2007, -14/+9Well you see this is the problem when you get all your political information from DIGG.

    Gordon Brown said this MONTHS AGO, as PM. He said, in his statement to the house of commons, about troop withdrawal, which is no doubt on the web, THESE EXACT FACTS. So all you lot pretending to care because you check digg every now and again for political info, get off your lazy fat arse and start doing something about the occupation rather than reading out of date webpages.
    • DieterManstein, on 11/18/2007, -4/+1Do what? Kick Brown's arse???
  • postaldave, on 11/18/2007, -26/+34dailykos?
    lmao, yeah that is a creditable news source.
    • brjohnson789, on 11/18/2007, -8/+13Dailykos isn't really a 'news' source, its a blog of sorts. HOWEVER, the facts referenced in the dailykos little article are from a newspaper with 'sources' and all. Your comment is BURIED for attempting to belittle the facts in this story.
      • billyjack1958, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1oops....i meant to digg u up brjohnson...u r absolutely right.....i have done the research
    • Sublime059, on 11/18/2007, -2/+15I'm sure they actually know how to spell credible so I think I'll stick to them as a credible news source and continue to call you a stupid ***** moron.
  • Sogui, on 11/18/2007, -16/+57Wow, ANOTHER misleading title on Digg?

    "Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday."

    Attacks against British and Iraqi forces plummet after a majority of British troops LEAVE THE COUNTRY? WHODATHUNK IT!?

    Most violence in Iraq is sectarian, the US could pull out of Iraq and claim ATTACKS AGAINST US TROOPS IN IRAQ DROP 100%, but that doesn't mean a civil war wouldn't break out and undo the toil and blood that Americans have paid to stabilize the country for the past few years.
    • manicleek, on 11/18/2007, -1/+15British troops havn't left the country
    • iticu, on 11/18/2007, -9/+7Americans stabilized the country? When?
      It doesn't look very stable to me, no sir.
      • Sogui, on 11/18/2007, -3/+13Stabilized is a relative term, things are getting better... but they could get a whole helluva lot worse.
    • brjohnson789, on 11/18/2007, -3/+4Yeah, like YOUR comment isn't misleading at all either. The fact is 90% of the violence dropped after the British left. There was NO increase in Iraqi on Iraqi violence. The POINT of this story is to refute the assumption that we need to have troops in Iraq for a very long time because once we leave there will be a big blood bath, the stupid Iraqis will just start killing eachother left and right. Turns out that assumption is about as wrong as how the Iraqis would welcome thier liberators with open arms and flowers.
    • Pritchard, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1The USA stabilizing? I think if you're oppressed, then yes, you're stabilized. We're ruling the country now, then? Telling people they can't disagree? This is a full-on occupation here.
      • Sogui, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2I think "disagree" would be the understatement of the century for what's going on between Iraqis.
    • decay, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1British officials expected a spike in such "intra-militia violence" after they pulled back from the city's center, and were surprised to find none, Binns said.
  • chuckpoole, on 11/18/2007, -1/+6It depends on what kind of violence you want to measure: Insurgent violence or criminal violence. Certainly if there is no one to fight you won't have any violence. Political statisticians like to throw out numbers to push their agenda whether it is left or right. You can never truly tell what is credible unless you know the source of the metrics and how they were obtained. Of course with Digg, you can quote or piggyback any story and it is true and hell to those who disagree.
  • poidh, on 11/18/2007, -3/+5I suppose that the women under threat of murder in Basra for having jobs/ wearing make-up/ not staying in doors all day producing future mujahids are just thrilled that the Iraqi "police" are taking over.
    • brjohnson789, on 11/18/2007, -2/+3So, is it my understanding that you think we should have US or British forces police anywhere in the world where women may be oppressed? The fact is that you can't force cultures to change at the end of a gun barrel. If anything they'll generally change in a manner you weren't hoping for.
      • leftykiller, on 11/18/2007, -3/+6Wrong. You can't impose liberty, you can only eliminated the obstacles to it.
  • nastronomical, on 11/18/2007, -14/+9dailykos?
    lmao, yeah that is a creditable news source.
  • jajive, on 11/18/2007, -3/+0Bozo's
  • Asianwaste, on 11/18/2007, -1/+2Duh, the insurgents who are part of the cause of the violence are going to other areas where there are coalition troops. No use for freedom fighters when there's nothing to fight in your neighborhood.
    • brjohnson789, on 11/18/2007, -1/+2Sounds like if all the occupying forces left there would be no freedom fighter violence then right? The point of this story is show how Iraqi on Iraqi violence did not increase once the occupiers left.
      • Asianwaste, on 11/19/2007, -1/+1Hence why they are "part" of the cause of violence.
  • blubolt, on 11/18/2007, -7/+5@ Sogui - pouring more blood on the problem will not restore anyones honor. The only honorable thing to do when you are wrong is admit your mistake and fix the problem. The problem in this case is our presence in the middle east. GO RON PAUL!!!!!
    • Sogui, on 11/18/2007, -1/+2Im not talking about honor here, I'm talking about the lives of millions of human beings. We've over 4,000 troops in Iraq, but put that into perspective with the millions of lives that could be lost in the total chaos of a civil war. To me, that would be the primary cost of pulling out... the following humiliation that would haunt the US for at least a century after we invaded a country to "rid it of a tyrant" only to abandon it and leave it in smoldering ruins a few years down the road would be how an entire world generation would remember US foreign policy.
      • leftykiller, on 11/18/2007, -2/+1It would also be the second time we abandon the Iraqis. (First time was after the first Gulf War.) Good luck trying to get others to rise up and overthrow their tyrannical governments with that kind track record.
  • marc123, on 11/18/2007, -4/+2"it’s like a class that won’t behave for a substitute teacher" - err.. no it isn't its nothing like that at all. The two situations are completely incommensurable. I agree the troops should leave asap and they are surely responsible for at least 90% of all violence. But SERIOUSLY you think the suicide-bombing, terrorist psyche bears comparison to that of a naughty school child? Get a grip will you. They are attacking the British because they see every Western, foreign soldier as an evil occupying force which (thanks to Darth Cheney and the rest) that's what they have become. We could have left years ago but the Bush Administration and its buddies like Blackwater and Haliburton had too money much to make.
  • sonycam, on 11/18/2007, -5/+8Buried as inaccurate title. Soldiers left an area which resulted in 90% drop on attacks on the soldiers.
    • HollowMarkeD, on 11/18/2007, -1/+3From the Herald:

      "British officials expected a spike in such "intra-militia violence" after they pulled back from the city's center, and were surprised to find none, Binns said.

      "That's because the Sadrist militia is all powerful here — more powerful than Badr. If Badr was allowed to take on JAM in Basra, they'd lose pretty quickly," he said, using the Arabic acronym for the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr."
  • scabbers, on 11/18/2007, -6/+6GOP supporters never seem to care about Saudi women... or women being endlessly raped in Darfur.
    • marc123, on 11/18/2007, -3/+3there's no oil in Darfur. they don't give a s**t.
      • leftykiller, on 11/18/2007, -4/+2Tell that to China who is drilling in the oil rich Sudan as we speak.
    • n0gnuz, on 11/18/2007, -1/+3Yeah, because the Democrats really care so much more.

      The left wing and right wing are both on the same bird.
  • jasqwerty, on 11/18/2007, -7/+4***** misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Typical of libtards...
    The British presence made Basra safe to begin with. The vast majority of what little amount of attacks that were left occurring were directed at the British forces. So of course removing the British forces was going to eliminate these attacks. Sadly this isn't true of much of the rest of attacks across Iraq. The attacks aren't principally purely against the US forces there.
    • HollowMarkeD, on 11/18/2007, -1/+6Can't understand the phrase "libtards"; liberalism is the cornerstone for capitalism, free speech and more. To be against liberalism is to be in favour for dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. Does it have some other meaning in the US? Or are you actually in favour of a more dictatorship style of government, like Bush/Cheney are accused of?
    • Delphium226, on 11/18/2007, -1/+3@HollowMarkeD

      Well said. Perhaps jasqwerty is a facistard. Doesn't really roll off the tongue. Maybe *****?
  • neiltc13, on 11/18/2007, -4/+4The sooner we get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan the better. We should not be supporting the USA in their ***** war - look what the terrorists did to London as a result.
    • leftykiller, on 11/18/2007, -7/+3Stop whining, you big vagina.
    • edd17, on 11/18/2007, -3/+2We ***** the place up; cutting and running might be the easiest thing to do but it wont be right or beneficial in the long run.
    • poidh, on 11/18/2007, -3/+1Coward. Simpleton. Idiot.
    • solid12345, on 11/18/2007, -2/+2By that logic if we had not helped you Limeys in World War II Japan and Hitler would have left us alone.
      • neiltc13, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1I'm not a limey but I am British. Figure that one out.
        • poidh, on 11/19/2007, -1/+1You're not British. We don't have cowards on these shores.
  • MikeFallopian, on 11/18/2007, -2/+4Wow, I was expecting attacks against British troops to increase after they left the area. Thanks for the insightful article, Dailykos (why was this on the front page?).
  • burningmanstan, on 11/18/2007, -2/+1I am really tired of these percent violence reports so lets look at some numbers that can be accurately estimated. There are at least 100,000 civilian deaths from the war and that is probably a very conservative estimate. More importantly there are at least 4 million refugees that have either moved to a different region or left the country. Also communities are increasingly divided along sectarian lines and mixed communities are less common.[1][2] If 100,000 people are killed, 4 million are displaced from violent areas along sectarian lines, and foreign troops leave the area then violence will go down. But has any problem been solved? You are left with displaced people and divided communities ready for future violence with each other over issues such as property, water, and oil rights.

    1. http://www.iom-iraq.net/Library/2007%20Iraq%20Disp ...
    2. http://www.brookings.edu/fp/projects/idp/20061018_ ...
  • ZenFountain, on 11/18/2007, -1/+3The people saying that the rest of Iraq will be like Basra are making the same mistakes the Bush people are making with their policy, if it works in once city, surely it will work everywhere else. I'm sure violence will go down in all Sunni, all Shiite and all Kurd areas when we leave, it's the mixed areas that are the problem. Violence only seems to go down in those areas after they have been ethnically cleansed. It's time for us to end the mission in Iraq, but nobody should be painting a rosy picture about what kind of Iraq we are leaving behind. Most of the soldiers and officers who have spoken openly about the situation seem to think the Iraqis are preparing themselves for a major civil war in the wake of the their departure and the collapse of the central government.
  • BigWorldBear, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1strong men rule....violence is behind the bars and closed doors of the society....this info can be interpreted any way you want......it's both good and bad since the comparison points are all part of the war spectrum
  • jakeson2, on 11/18/2007, -7/+3"There have been 3,223 U.S. military deaths in Iraq since the war began in 2003, and more than 10,000 Iraqi civilian and security forces killed since January 2006, according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. About 1,576 people died as a result of homicide or non negligent manslaughter in Detroit since the beginning of 2003".
    The above is from a clipping I kept from 2006, I think it was on the AP. As you can see, we need to pull out of Detroit. If we pull out of Detroit we can save 90 percent of those lives lost to useless murder. These victims of useless murder is not bringing democracy to Detroit, neither is the money spent of police and law enforcement their. We must abandon Detroit to those murderers and leave immediately. NOW DIGG away you daily kook types. Should we abandon your little den of murderers as well in your little inner city zoo?
    • Mardala, on 11/18/2007, -2/+5That analogy is retarded. We are not occupying Detroit, nor did we invade it.
  • mclumber1, on 11/18/2007, -2/+0The story is misleading. The level of violence in Basra has always been low compared to the rest of Iraq. Compared to Baghdad, Basra is an almost homogeneous city - only shiites live there. The likelyhood of sectarian violence is quite low when you're the only ethnic/religious group in town. The British left/are leaving because there is nothing more they can really do as a military force. The problems inside Basra are policing problems, not military ones. Baghdad on the other hand, still contains pockets of insurgent groups hell bent on killing the infidel shiites (or sunnis) and American soldiers.
  • KunalHS, on 11/18/2007, -3/+6I am not worried about Iraqi women. I am worried, my USD $ is going down as Bush is pouring money in .. In a blackhole called Iraq. Wake up ..
    • berb, on 11/18/2007, -4/+2I am anti-Iraq war and generally anti-Bush.

      But I have to say, I care much more about the wellbeing of other people than the value of the U.S. dollar. Get your priorities straight.
      • Retnuh730, on 11/18/2007, -2/+2Then get the ***** off your computer and do something, Grow a pair.
  • m6ack, on 11/18/2007, -2/+5The reason that the death toll went down is that the Jihadist Imports moved to a place where there were more Westerners that they can try to Kill. In the place of the Brit's, and for the purchase of apparent peace, has come Fundamentalist Islamic Oppression. If you do not kill Jihadists there, you will have to kill them elsewhere (or they will Kill you) -- and if you pull out, you abandon the people to Oppression.

    You want to know what the real issue is in the Middle east -- why the Jihadists have power and Why the people hate the Western world worse than the Jihadists? The simple moralistic people of the middle east do not want smut to be forced on them from the west. They do not want their children to use the "F-word" in every sentance. They do not want their children to idolize Gangsta Rappers, nor do they see anything positive in the antics of Paris Hilton or Brittany.

    Though we see the greater virtue in a free debate in the arena of ideas, Fundamentalist Islam sees greater virtue in the annihilation of depravity. Not only will they not tolerate it in their society, they will target it in others.

    If you wish to live with their society in peace, you will have to give their extremists a better target, or you have to accept that bull's eye on your back, and KILL them first -- preferably on ground where we have professionals trained to get shot at and trained to kill them, and where we have a minimum of people in the way who are not trained to get shot at and kill.

    You also have to attempt to retrain their culture, so that they no longer target you with their angst and funnel money to the Jihadists. That means resting the control of the school system from Fundamentalist Islam. The replacement cannot be Amoral or Athiestic -- this would be rejected in total by their moralistic society.

    I suggest a radical idea: Use a neutral curriculum, but leverage Fundamentalist Christian Missionaries as educators. Why? The faith chooses to compete in the arena of ideas, rather than in cutting off peoples heads if they do not believe, yet provides a moral equivalent that can compete with Islam. Their religion is not Catholic -- which is tightly associated with the Crusader. The missionaries are also trained and prepared to be killed for doing the job.
  • ny156uk, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2Surely this is a sign of a successful removal of troops? Many factors could well at play here. Is the violence down 90% or has reporting dropped as a result of less military presence?

    Has the removal of troops seen the removing/reorganising of those causing the violence to other regions? After all if the troops aren't there then presumably those who were fighting the troops can move onto something else. That could be joining over groups in neighbouring areas or simply stopping the fighting.

    Military presence is usually a sign of danger/problems, their removal should surely see a reduction in crime/violence - their leaving being the start of the move to normality. Timing, understanding what will occur if you withdraw, risk assessment etc. all need to be taken into account. It ain't as simple as no-troops = less violence, but it does make sense that things would reduce on their leaving.
  • DarkReign16, on 11/18/2007, -2/+6Why are the neo-con bush bot comments getting dugg up?
  • ZenMojo, on 11/18/2007, -3/+1Man, we really ***** that place up. I hope the Christians and Jews already bailed.
    • 01l0, on 11/18/2007, -0/+14-6 million refugees. Why single out Christians and Jews? Is it because you don't care when Brown people die?
      • Chaoticfist, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1He is an ignorant ass hole. I hope all the people affected by this war find peace someday. I wish the Americans would never have invaded. However they can not just leave now. It will only get worse. They need Iran, as well as some Arab nations there to work together to get some real peace. The Americans made a mess and now they must clean up.
  • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1Here's an interesting behind-the-scenes take on some potential source violence in Basra:
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/2pao9v
  • popularminority, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1So the brits leave and violence goes down...who would have known that was source.
  • Discerneth, on 11/18/2007, -0/+0Keep in mind the reasons for violence in Basra are very different for the violence in the American sectors. This doesn't necessarily mean pulling out of the U.S. sectors will mean violence drops in that area too.

    Either way, the whole situation is a mess...
  • Darkside2984, on 11/18/2007, -3/+2Short sightedness will be the end of the Western world. Thank God for America and it not surrendering to the extremists.
  • solid12345, on 11/18/2007, -2/+2More lies from the dailypos er I mean dailykos.

    The fact is the "insurgency" is a civil war where most of the victims are Iraqis, not American or British troops. Us leaving won't change anything, the Shia/Sunni rivalry will remain.
  • kevdotbadger, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2Wow. I thought the majority of these comments we're going to a load of people slagging off the British.
  • Chaoticfist, on 11/19/2007, -1/+2As much as i would like the Americans to leave they cant. If they leave it will only get worse. I say they should stay, and try and get Iran, and surrounding nations to help with troops, get the UN, as well as others. Make it so it is not just the west there. It will be a long time before there is peace there. I never supported this war for your info, however once you have started something, you can not just say o well to bad i dnt care anymore.
  • tricks574, on 11/19/2007, -0/+0Of course the violence dropped.............that isn't exactly a great indicator of how well off the area is though. Why would there be violence if theres no one to fight. Violence was pretty low in the heart of Nazi Germany as well, not that it is the same situation, but I'm just saying that the level of violent acts in an area is not a very good indicator of its health, especially when the aggressor in the conflict is busy fighting in other places.
  • complainforever, on 11/19/2007, -0/+0As much as I hate wow things are going on these days, but this Ron Paul slanted side really sucks
  • ifknot, on 11/19/2007, -0/+3And the missing words in this weeks caption are: British Leave Basra; REPORTS OF Violence Drops by 90 Percent
    'Abscence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'
  • motters, on 11/19/2007, -1/+1British involvement in the Iraq war was a mistake from the start, and with our own imperialist past we really ought to have been able to foresee what would happen. Too many lives and too much UK taxpayers money have been squandered on this pointless and disgraceful military adventure.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.