US, Iraqi Forces Brace for Wave of Election Bombs ('attacks..you bet!')

[truthpusher]

http://www.keralanext.com/news/indexread.asp?id=97787

Iraq, US, Iraqi Forces Brace for Wave of Election Bombs

3 minutes Ago

Iraq News: TIKRIT, Iraq - Iraqi and U.S. forces are planning elaborate tactics to protect polling stations from suicide car bombers expected to launch a wave of attacks on the Jan. 30 elections.

Major General John Batiste, head of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division based in the Sunni heartland north of Baghdad, said the Americans planned to stay clear of polling centers during the vote, leaving visible security to Iraqi forces. But U.S. forces would be on hand to back up the Iraqis if they had to.

(snip)

Iraqi authorities announced on Saturday measures including curfews, bans on travel between provinces, on civilians carrying weapons and on most cars from using the streets on election day. No one expects those measures to guarantee peace at the polls.

"Will there be attacks on election day? You bet!" Batiste told reporters late on Friday. "The insurgent will try to maneuvere a suicide vehicle bomb as close as he can to inflict the most damage. We know that. That's his tactics."


more:

http://www.keralanext.com/news/indexread.asp?id=97787

[ashmanonar]

1. i love how they claim that they know to a T the tactics

of rebels, then can't ever actually stop them or find out who it is..."yup yup yup...which way did he go george which way did he go."

jesus.

[Rockerdem]

2. Huh?

Everyone knows their tactic, just not the timing. Even moi. And they always find the head of the bomber in the street afterward.

[ashmanonar]

7. the problem with broadly saying "their tactics"

is that not every group is the same, i'd bet. certainly, some would use trucks filled with explosives, but not all, i'd say. some may be less religious and more "national independence" rebels who are fighting to protect their home...and why would they blow themselves up when they've got a home to protect, unless they're really fucking courageous and willing to sacrifice themselves for the others?

a broad paintbrush doesn't really say anything about who "these people" are and what "they" really want.

on edit: stupid grammar, grumble grumble

[Truman01]

3. Are we on the bomber's side?

Which do we want to prevail? The election held by Iraqi's or the insurgents who would like to bring back a Saddam like government?

TC

[bemildred]

4. I'm on the side of the Iraqi people.

No occupation means no bombers.
They can hold their own election without US interference.
Bring the troops home now.

[leftchick]

5. what he said!

bring em home!

[truthpusher]

6. The problem is that they do not want an election...

...not the way they do things over there.

[ashmanonar]

8. then is it our place to force democratic government on them...

when they've never had anything like it? iraq was a sovereign country, albeit one run by a dictator. bush violated many international treaties by attacking unilaterally without UN recognition.

[truthpusher]

12. When it comes to changing something that...

...corrupt or not, has existed (with acceptance) for thousands of years, you gotta take baby steps.

[ashmanonar]

13. baby steps, yes

but that does not mean get in, blow it to hell, set an election date, then warn everybody that theyr'e gonna attack, then "try" to leave...

one good way might have been to get all the iraqi ex-pats to go back, after the dictatorship had fell, but to keep institutions liek the police and military (and all the other institutions we destroyed)...then, have the ex-pats tell the native iraqis how great the places they went were...(oh, wait...in america, people call them rag-heads and terrorists.)

not to sound fatalist, but baby steps are difficult to establish when you've destroyed their country and pride like that...everything the neocons have done to this point has been to poison any peace process that might have been tried.

[bemildred]

10. Bullshit.

Learn a little history. It is the US government that does
not like democracy, in the Middle East or anywhere else.

Read about Mossadegh in Iran:

http://www.parstimes.com/opinion/2005/f_fatemi.html

Read about Iraq before the US got in bed with the Baathists:

http://hnn.us/articles/1359.html

n the 1920s, a flourishing Iraq civil society began with the formation of numerous professional associations, including a highly respected legal profession, a vibrant press, political parties, artist ateliers, writers associations, labor unions, and an extensive coffeehouse culture. This nascent civil society expanded greatly after the end of World War II. During the 1950s, large numbers of Iraqis participated in Iraqi politics through the many new political parties, such as the National Democratic and Independence parties formed after the war. In 1954, with the temporary relaxation of state control, a coalition of Iraqi nationalists and moderate Pan-Arabists competed in the June elections, running a highly professional campaign and scoring impressive victories in 13 of the country's most important electoral districts in 2 of Iraq's main cities, Baghdad and Mosul. Efforts by sectarian elements, during the electoral campaign, particularly those from the Ba'ath Party, first formed in Iraq in 1952, to separate Arab nationalists from Iraqi nationalists, were unsuccessful and the electoral coalition retained its cohesion.

A short (westernized) history of Iraq:

http://hnn.us/comments/9955.html

[Truman01]

9. That isn't true

The occupation is ONE of the problems, but civil war would definitely errupt if we left. I'm not saying not to leave, I'm just saying the bombings are in support of the Bath party returning to power.

TC

[bemildred]

11. I didn't say no civil war, that remains to be seen.

I said no car-bombings. Maybe that would only turn out to be
fewer car bombings, but what the heck?

[Truman01]

15. You have a point, I was in error ;-)

[Twillig]

14. Car bomb derby.

n/t