Fighting displaces tens of thousands of Iraqis
The number of Iraqis fleeing their homes for safer parts of the country has more than doubled in two weeks to 65,000, the Iraqi Ministry of Displacement and Migration said Thursday.
A ministry spokesman reported a twofold jump from the 30,000 internal refugees estimated on March 30. The ministry put the number of families on the move at 10,991.
Most of these refugees are women and children, said an official from the Red Crescent Society in Iraq.
“We are very concerned about communicable diseases in the camps that have formed, like cholera and typhoid,” the official said. “This exponential increase of refugees is quite disturbing.”
You see, under Saddam, people couldn’t go anywhere without government permission. Now they are free to go wherever they please! Let freedom reign (sic)!
I can’t wait to find out how this is a sign of our success in Iraq.
Don’t keep me waiting, boys.
People get to move to the suburbs?
Whatever it is…it is simply NOT a Civil War. I heard Bush scoff at that notion, and that’s enough for me!
Duros wins!
Congratulations.
I guess it took so long for you liberals to learn that soldiers die in wars, that you may now be ready for the next lesson in War 101: When war breaks out, people get as far away from it as they can. These people have been traditionally known as “refugees.”
If — or should I say when — it happens again that something about warfare confuses you, please post your questions in the comments area. I’m sure either Dr P, or Dugger or I will be able to help you.
“Of course, it IS a bit more like people are moving to the burbs& sort of like LA after the 92 riots …”
Sigh. What an idiot.
wow you guys were right!
I mean, i have heard stories of the horrible number of refugees that this war was going to cause for….4 years!
Of course, it IS a bit more like people are moving to the burbs…sort of like LA after the 92 riots
but, there you have it…
I take it, Pedro, that you also believed everything Baghdad Bob said during the invasion?
But then again, comparing Baghdad in 2006 to Los Angeles in 1992 is an earmark for stupidity. There are “riots,” and then there is “war.”
And, q’elle surpise….just a week after hearing John “I was for the war before I was agaisnt it” Kerry on Meet the press….
“The Islamic nation must support the heroic mujahedeen (holy warriors) in Iraq, who are fighting on the very front line for the dignity of Islam,” al-Zawahri said.
“And to my brother mujahedeen in Iraq, I say, Stay firm. Stay together. Your enemy has begun to falter, so don’t stop pursuing him until he flees defeated,” he said.
Funny, Al Qaeda seems to think us leaving Iraq is a victory…I guess he isn’t reading Ollies Weblog….
What is that? Sarcasm?
If or should I say when it happens again that something about warfare confuses you, please post your questions in the comments area. I m sure either Dr P, or Dugger or I will be able to help you.
The increased violence is good news, further proving that the insurgency is in its final throes. For real this time. We’re not making this up. Seriously. You can trust us.
By the way, Iran will murder and rape your children if we don’t nuke them, preferably by the 2006 elections. Because they really, really, really mean it this time when they say they want to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth”. Would we lie to you?
http://www.bustedtees.com/shirts/pedro
Ususally refugees move either before or soon after war breaks out, don’t they? What were they doing ? Packing for 3 years?
I see. People fleeing their homes because occupation forces can’t quell sectarian violence is just more of that “untidiness” we should expect?
Duros, people in Frank’s generation don’t really understand saracasm. Their specialty is being panicky, belligerent idiots (see Powerline, Captain Ed, Instapundit, their foreign policy towards Iran, etc.).
…and he says I need a sense of humor….
Quaker
WooHoo!!
When war breaks out, people get as far away from it as they can. These people have been traditionally known as refugees.
So, wait, it’s taken 3 years for that to happen? What were those people doing all this time?
I guess for DRDoper, those refugees moving is kind of like the time he had to skip out of that crappy arpartment over the tattoo parlor back to his mother’s basement. Who knew the bottom could fall out of the Rush Limbaugh collectibles market so quickly?
And FrankD, as for your schooling on war, there were no flowers, it wasn’t free, and the mission still hasn’t been accomplished. Not to mention WMDs. You need some refresher courses.
Gee, I don’t know, duros, but I’ll bet you do. So tell me.
They also want to save the lives of their children
Doctors, NGOs warn of high infant mortality in Basra
BASRA, 11 April (IRIN) – As a result of water-borne diseases and a lack of medical supplies, infants born in the southern city of Basra are subject to abnormally high mortality rates, say officials of an international NGO devoted to child health issues.
&
Many doctors in the area say that the local health situation has deteriorated markedly since the US-led invasion of the country in 2003. “The mortality of children in Basra has increased by nearly 30 percent compared to the Saddam Hussein era,” Dr Haydar Salah, a paediatrician at the Basra Children’s Hospital, pointed out. “Children are dying daily, and no one is doing anything to help them.”
Just one more way in which Bush has outdone Saddam
Tom Y: Actually, some people in your generation don’t understand anything. You, unfortunately, seem to be one of them.
But I’m confused, duros… Was what sarcasm? Not my statement…
While you have refined your question, you haven’t answered mine.
Let’s try it another way. I say they are refugees. You are implying they might be something else.
What are they? And, if they are not refugees, what are they doing?
“I guess it took so long for you liberals to learn that soldiers die in wars,” Frank.
Liberals have always understood that Frank. But when will conservatives understand that NO Americans should have died in this unnecessary, immoral, probably illegal war of choice?
God! I get sick of hearing conservatives say that 2,300 dead is not that many compared to other wars. In the case of Iraq, 2,300 dead and counting is 2,300 dead and counting too many. So many lives destroyed for a few fools in Washington.
I beg to differ, Rounds.
It would be nice if no one died in a war. But they do. I really don’t care what you think of this war.
You see, it’s easy to oppose a war. People die, their friends and families mourn, lives filled with promise come to an end. No matter what the outcome of a war, it can be seen, if you choose, as a waste.
However, this war was fought by volunteers. Volunteers who have chosen to return more than twice, when, in Viet Nam, for example, you needed special permission to return for a third tour. Now, it’s practically matter of fact. Even wounded men and women, who don’t have to, volunteer to return. The “hero” Jacques Kerry got his three scratches, and bolted like a broke college freshman in a diner.
And here’s an excerpt from a letter I read just today:
“Wade Zirkle, the executive director of Vets for Freedom, in The Washington Post about troops who support the war in Iraq. Zirkle himself served two tours in Iraq and was wounded in action”
Who are you (and, yes, who am I?) to decide that what they’re doing is “unnecessary, immoral, and probably [?] illegal”?
BTW, News flash — all wars are “wars of choice.”
No, we all agree that they’re refugees and that refugees are an expected consequence of war. However, they’re not fleeing the invasion. That was three years ago.
What war are they fleeing, Frank?
the 800 lb elephant in the leftist’s room is why Al qaeda believes that his people should keep on fighting, because the’re winning, just after Kerry explains how we should retreat out of iraq.
And I would also love to hear the leftist explain away the fact that AQ thinks the battle is in Iraq, when all of OW’s readers know full well that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, and we should have ALL our fighting men walking line abreast across the Hindu Kush….
The 150 lb elephant in the room is why my comments aren’t met with thoughtful con arguments, but rather ad hominem attack….If I am so wrong, why not put together a simple argument?
Or perhaps you can’t…?
Do Frank_D, drpedro and Dugger manage their own websites in addition to posting comments on this one?
We know people die in wars, that’s kind of the main problem with them.
“BTW, News flash all wars are wars of choice.”
Yes, but whose?
Is there such a thing as idiot fatigue? I think I just hit the wall.
I didn’t coin the phrase, “War of choice” as condemnatory. implying that the President “chose” to go to war in Iraq, because the cable in the White House, as if any President ever has another choice.
So, if you’re asking “whose?”, then you’re making it sound like it was somebody’s choice, and you don’t agree with that choice.
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear enough in my response to rounds: I think this attack on Iraq was a good idea, is still a good idea, and I see nothing anytime soon to convinve that it might become a bad idea.
So, I don’t what you care you think about this war, either. And, if anyone else within a million miles is opposed to this war, I don’t care what they think of this war, either.
I’ve had my fill of “anti – war” phonies, who are opposed to wars, when it suits them — usually when Republicans are in power.
Frame, the idiots are in their last throes. They hate our freedom.
Fabulous riposte paul…..
It is definately hard for me to have a battle over ideas when I am fighting agaisnt the unarmed.
But, more directly, yes, idiots do get tired too, I can’t imagine what you are going through…
The 800 lb. elephant (a garbled, infantile metaphor that perfectly reflects your garbled, infantile thinking) in the room is: why didn’t you give a shit when Bush pulled all our troops out of Saudi Arabia, no doubt giving Osama a big hard on? Why, it’s because America doesn’t make foreign policy solely on al-Qaeda’s reaction. Surprise! There are other factors in play! And if we can’t win in Iraq, it doesn’t matter if pulling out would make al-Qaeda happy — it’s still the least bad option on the table. Not that you’re interested; you only address the points that allow you to clumsily slur Democrats, never the ones that actually, you know, demolish your actual arguments, you low-down troll bastard, Pedro.
“I see nothing anytime soon to convinve that it might become a bad idea.”
Of course not. You’ve sacrificed nothing and contributed nothing. What have you got to lose?
DrDoper, leftist anti-war people believed that Iraq HAD nothing to do with terrorism, that it wasn’t a necessary front in the War on Terror, and that it would have a negative effect on said war if we invaded. Well, we invaded, it has had a negative impact on the US’s fight against terrorism, put serious strain on our military so that our ability to protect ourselves from real threats is diminished, and reduced our credibility and standing in the world. Not to mention the $250billion+ that we’ve essentially wasted and the thousands of lives lost, and the huge recruiting and training ground for Al Qaeda terrorists Bush’s Blunder has created.
Now we are stuck with all the above crap, the security situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, Bush has failed to adapt when his administration’s post-invasion occupation plan was found to be written for some fantasy land.
can anyone actually address this paradox?
Piddgy and tommy have certainly danced around the issue…but if Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, why are the terrorist so interested in it? More importantly, why does the AQ come out urging continued fighting because they are close to “victory” a week after JFKerry goes on national tv yelling “run away, run away!”
Can you leftist stay focused long enough to answer that question without going around the bend on Saudi, or “other factors involved”?
Reading comprehension DrDoper, look into it.
I disagree… TY and midderpidge
What are those terrorists doing in Iraq? They’re just going to get killed, eventually. If I was from Afghanistan or Pakistan,I wouldn’t go all the way to Iraq to get my ass shot off, virgins or no virgins.
This is their Armageddon, I’m betting, and I’m thinking that that’s what Dr P is getting at.
Now answer the question, please… What are they doing there?
Are you really a doctor? Really? I’ve known doctors, and seriously, midderpidges post directly addresses yours. How can you be this dense?
And, of course, Dr. Pedro has derailed the thread once again.
FrankI say they are refugees. You are implying they might be something else.
What are they? And, if they are not refugees, what are they doing?
I implied nothing of the sort. I didn’t say they weren’t refugees. I was asking you what you think took them so long to leave their homes?
if Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, why are the terrorist so interested in it?
Because child psychology works so well on George W. Bush.
See: Remus, Uncle, re: “briar patch.”
You leftists are incapable of working in the now and the future aren’t you?
I ask a question about the state of Iraq, TODAY, and get a diatriabe about what went on 4 years ago, followed by ad hominem attacks of MY reading comprehension!
This is why america doesn’t trust you to lead…you are incapable of it. Great and nit picking history AFTER you have had a chance to think about for half a decade or so and get your thoughts together…! LOL
You didn’t imply that? OK…
Way to win a fight against a strawman, Frank. No one says that the Iraq of today has no terrorists in it, only that U.S. foreign policy should be conducted on the basis of our national interest, the same calculation we made when we pulled out of Saudi. Will Pedro actually address the argument this time?
OK, fine. I don’t even know if the figures they’re quoting have anything to do with anything.
On the other hand, there could be any number of variables: Perhaps a small epidemic, lack of clean water, sewage in the water supply, “evil spirits”, who knows.
It could be one of those pointless stories meant to, once again, make the situation look more horrible than it is. It was originated by the Red Crescent,you know? Passed on by the Criminal News Network (until 1989, known as the Commie News Network), as red meat to tthe likes of Oliver, who has said, in the last few days,things like, “The President Of The United States Is A Liar, You already knew that, but it s good to have more data to add to the pile.”
Maybe the Red Crescent + CNN + Oliver were adding more “data to the pile.”
Who knows what evil lurks in the mind of men? Not me, I ain’t The Shadow.
Well, thank you for your answer anyway. I could do without the hyperbole, but ok. The increase could be because of a lack of stability and security too, right? Maybe because of the threat of Civil Wa…DON’T SAY THAT!!
I find it kind of weird that an agency exists called the Ministry of Displacement and Migration.
Apparently DrDoper doesn’t understand that the mistakes of the past directly influence the present and the future. Al Qaeda isn’t losing in Iraq. They are getting funding, materiel, recruits, training and support. The US isn’t winning. We are losing troops, materiel, money, support and international support.
I don’t think we are killing them faster than they are being recruited FrankD.
This is why more Americans learn every day that Republicans talk a good game but bring their basketball shoes to a swim meet.
I asked a question about the state of Iraq today and i don’t get an answer, but you guys are all up in people’s grill if you don’t get an answer by the time you hit refresh.
I asked a question yesterday and am still waiting.
And no, I didn’t imply that. I believe, that is, it is my opinionthat that would be your perception.
Definitely. Needs a little polishing, doesn’t it? If the Bush administration was running it, it would be the Ministry for Expanded Opportunities.
A division of Haliburton Industries.
“If Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, why are the terrorist so interested in it?”
Sigh. First of all, pedro, the insurgency is and has always been dominated by Iraqis, some 80 percent. So please tell me how al-Qeada wins if we leave?
I mean you keep saying it over and over: If the US leave al-Qeada wins. But how? What do they win?
Don’t ask me, ask al-Zawahri , the high AQ muckety-muck…..he is the one who said AQ wins.
The question I have is: Why is it that AQ thinks that the battle is being fought in Iraq, and Ollie’s Lilly Livered Wannabe Warriors don’t?
Paul, like your movie reviews, you have a poor comprehension of the subject matter here. Go re-read Al Zawahri’s statement.
How do you say “Taliban” in Farsi?
Remember, duros, if you say there’s a civil war, you have to 1) Define the term, and 2) Apply it to the situation in Iraq.
This is what I’ve been hinting at since 4:09 PM yesterday.
Peedro, the comprehension problem is yours.
Here’s the quote you posted:
Now where does al-Zawarhi say that any of the fighters are al Qaeda? Or is it your impression that all Muslims are al Qaeda?
Here’s one for DrDoper: what benefit has the US gotten from its invasion of Iraq?
One big benefit: The geographically – challenged “average American” can now find another country in the Middle East, besides Israel…
Who said anything about a civil war? Not me, brutha.
“Paul, like your movie reviews, you have a poor comprehension of the subject matter here. Go re-read Al Zawahri s statement.”
Because I’m sure you’ve spent a lot of time perusing my modest ouevre. Second, you’ve left so many players out of the equation to focus entirely on a group that, at best, makes up 20 percent of the violent factions in Iraq, not the least of whom are the Iraqis themselves. Just a few weeks ago didn’t you link to a “brilliant analysis” of the situation that said a rift had formed between the foreign terrorists and the Sunni insurgency thus presaging our ultimate victory? Can’t you even get your stories straight? I’m not saying that al-Qaeda couldn’t or doesn’t want to take advantage of the chaos that we’ve helped to create there but what’s the best they could hope to gain out of it all? We’ve already seen that the war in Iraq has done little to impact al-Qaeda’s international operations. Think Spain, London, Indonesia … And it’s highly doubtful that they will end up in control of Iraq itself, there’s simply too many other players involved. At best they get what they already have now, a lawless section of Iraq from which they can operate.
You’re a one man propoganda machine pedro. A true mushbrain.
Duros:Maybe because of the threat of Civil Wa& DON T SAY THAT!!
You were getting real close, and I was thinking “A word, to the wise, is sufficient”.
Paul your inane scribblings in a free fish wrap do not qualify as an “ouevre”.
You flatter yourself….again.
Let me shorten your screed for you: You agree that we are fighting AQ in Iraq.
Now, isn’t that a Good Thing?
Aren’t we still fighting them in Afghanistan too, DrDoper? And they can still send fighters to stir up trouble in Iraq? Now, naswer my question; what benefit is the United States getting from the invasion of Iraq?
A more stable regime in the mideast
A country that can no longer pursue WMDs
No more safe havens for al qaeda and its ilk
No further support of palestinian suicide bombers
A warning to despotic dictators
Wrong.
Wrong from the start.
Wrong. Just the opposite in fact.
Not US.
Some warning. They seem undeterred.
Let me rephrase for you then.
What regime is more stable? The current one? So WRONG.
Iraq was not pursuing WMDs at the time of invasion and had opened to weapons inspections teams, so WRONG. Furthermore, the invasion of its neighbor has spurred Iran’s WMD ambitions, so SUPER WRONG.
Al Qaeda still operates in Afghanistan with increased freedom since we shifted attention to Iraq, they also operate freely in Iraq, so once again WRONG.
Israel is not the US. So I call Strawman!
See Iran. Genocides still occuring, Bush included despoti- ruled states in his ‘Coalition of the Willing’. What warning? If we agree with the US we get a pass on our human rights violating? So WRONG, again. You got a zero, Doper.
LOL
Sorry had I known there was going to be no actual level of proof required, simply piddgy-widdgy repeating “wrong”, much like a four year old, I wouldn’t have wasted my time…
stable was a poor choice of words…a more civilized regime…
and there is no question that even though it is discombobulated at this time, the new goverment will be more civilized
Your new hero A. Zinni once commented that even if Iraq didn’t have stockpiles of WMD’s, they could start making them in weeks. The point stands
AQ operates with increased freedom? Are you nuts? We have been killing AQ at a 10-1 ratio for months now. Compare that to pre-war where Iraq set up whole terrorist “summer camps” for training….that ain’t happening now.
Israel is our best allie in the region. If it is good for israels security it is good for ours
See Libya.
Clouds and moonbeams. You must like Islamic republics.
They had no capacity to make WMDs.
10=1 ratio for months, they have the bodies to spend. Iraq had training camps? Moonbeams.
Israel is our best allie in the region? Statement without backup. WHy is it the best allie? How do you know the Islamic Republic we might create in Iraq won’t be hostile to Israel?
See Libya? Why? That was negotiation and diplomacy. I guess sanctions really can work. Strawman.
They had no capacity to make WMDs
See the Kurdish and Iranian chemical weapons attacks. WMD’s can be made in a basement with the right knowledge
10=1 ratio for months, they have the bodies to spend. Iraq had training camps? Moonbeams
so why have they stopped aiming at the US and more at unarmed civilians…seems like they are getting hurt.
See this link for the Camp (Camp Moonbeam in leftist parlance)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
Israel is our best allie in the region? Statement without backup
This is the internet equivalent of “nyanyanyanay…I’m not listening!”
See Libya? Why? That was negotiation and diplomacy.
I guess, but they rolled over about a week after we took down saddam, but didn’t budge for about twenty years before that……I guess if you call having a gun to your head “negotiation” your statement would be true……
You aren’t really all that bright are you Piddgy Widdgy?
Are we going to start a war with BASEMENTS next? They could be produced here, they could be produced anywhere including your basement.
10-1 ratio is ambiguous at any rate, we kill 10 iraqis but which Iraqis? We also have changed tactics, fewer and larger US patrols. Didn’t an entire marine company get ambushed last week? 2 dead, 22 injured. Company-sized ambush? Now we clean out the neighborhood looking for the insurgents who have probably moved on. Targeting civilians, incidently, keeps things boiling and helps prevent a government from forming.
Did you miss the entire How do you know the new Islamic Republic of Iraq will be Israel-friendly? Take fingers out of ears, read entire paragraph.
They rolled after 10 years of diplomacy, sanctions and negotiations with Britain. Note: with BRITAIN.
Compared to you DrDoper, I’m the sun to your 20 watts.