Children walk by dead bodies in the street to get to school

cozmik

BAGHDAD — About 70% of primary school students in a Baghdad neighborhood suffer symptoms of trauma-related stress such as bed-wetting or stuttering, according to a survey by the Iraqi Ministry of Health.

The survey of about 2,500 youngsters is the most comprehensive look at how the war is affecting Iraqi children, said Iraq's national mental health adviser and author of the study, Mohammed Al-Aboudi.

"The fighting is happening in the streets in front of our houses and schools," al-Aboudi said. "This is very difficult for the children to adapt to."

The study is to be released next month. Al-Aboudi discussed the findings with USA TODAY.

Many Iraqi children have to pass dead bodies on the street as they walk to school in the morning, according to a separate report last week by the International Red Cross. Others have seen relatives killed or have been injured in mortar or bomb attacks.

"Some of these children are suffering one trauma after another, and it's severely damaging their development," said Said Al-Hashimi, a psychiatrist who teaches at Mustansiriya Medical School and runs a private clinic in west Baghdad. "We're not certain what will become of the next generation, even if there is peace one day," Al-Hashimi said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-04-15-cover-war-children_N.htm


Bertie Ahern and the Irish Government are complicit in destroying the lives of these young people and yet many of you who will no doubt vote for this shower of bastards in the upcoming election.
Everyone of the reasons Bush gave us for going to war were lies but that has not deterred our pathetic Taoiseach from contiuning to facilitate the escalation of violence by the U.S. in Iraq.

Of course I know this won't be an issue for the majority of voters but our willful ignorance about the active role we play in the occupation of Iraq is going to one day cause us some serious problems.

wes

The situation in Iraq is so sad. First the illegal invasion and then the US and British force botch the whole thing. They didn't provide enough troops to protect the Iraqi people in the first place and now there presence exacerbates the situation.

The destruction of Iraq is going to lead to a lot of children to grow up with severe mental issues.

Also the refugee crisis is sadly ignored. The governments who's stupidity lead to this mess, aren't stepping up and helping refugee's, the majority in other Arab countries who could use the help. Hell the US and UK aren't even taking in people who work for them and because they worked for them they then become targets. Its really disgusting that they would treat people who helped them like this, but sadly this is the kind of attitude one should expect from the US and UK.

El Stuntman

wes wrote:

They didn't provide enough troops to protect the Iraqi people in the first place and now there presence exacerbates the situation.

surely they are trying to prevent the fundamentalist maniacs on each side from slaughtering each other in some re-run of the Dark Ages?

I agree they shouldn't be there in the first place but lets not pretend that they are the ones doing the killing here

MeatProduct

Not much point in blaming the US and UK for this. What's stopping me and you from helping them out a little. I gripe about what's happening over there yet I'm not prepared to do anything about it. If blame needs be apportioned then everyone on the planet should bear it.

It's not like it has nothing to do with us. If we were all full of compassion and understanding then none of this nonsense would be happening but it is so what does that suggest about us? We all have some George Bush and Tony Blair in us and the sooner that is addressed on an individual level then the sooner we'll stop blowing each other up. The only way this mess can be sorted out is by fixing the root of the problem and that's me and you.

Nick

wes

El Stuntman wrote:

surely they are trying to prevent the fundamentalist maniacs on each side from slaughtering each other in some re-run of the Dark Ages?

I agree they shouldn't be there in the first place but lets not pretend that they are the ones doing the killing here

I said there presence exacerbates things. I didn't blame the US on the sectarian slaughter. How you managed to read from my post is a mystery to me.

What I do blame them on (the US and UK) is a botched invasion. There criminal level of incompetence is visible for the whole world to see. If they were serious about helping the Iraqi people they should have pored thousands more troops a long time ago, at this point its too late. They tried to do this war on the cheap. Thats there fault. The sectarian violence is the fault of those involved, not the US/UK.

InFront

Yes their presence has exacerbated this and I don't think wes was saying anything else. It's a fact.

The people who are first and foremost to blame for this latest bombing are probably Iraqis, and definitely Muslims. That's a huge tragedy for Iraq. It would be a lot easier if it were Americans still (directly) causing the death because at least then they could just be made leave. The fact that outside troops like them are actually needed in Iraq says a lot about what has happened to that place. There's absolutely no sense to it.

Zambia

Folks the US/UK never went near Darfur now or Rwanda in the 90's and kids walk though worse to get food.

In essence I would like to see more interventions not less

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

would you have liked an american military intervention in northern Ireland a couple of decades ago?

wes

Zambia232 wrote:

Folks the US/UK never went near Darfur now or Rwanda in the 90's and kids walk though worse to get food.

In essence I would like to see more interventions not less

Iraq wasn't an intervention. They went in looking for imaginary WMD's and there were also imaginary links to Al Queada that Cheney loves to mention (and have Bush deny it), which you can find easily online.

They could care less about Darfur. The Neo-con agenda needed a bad guy and Saddam was it. They were planning this since 1997 (as per the project for the new American century). So there intervention in Iraq was about the Neo-con agenda, than any genuine need to help people.

Judt

Ok, so Iraq is a screwup of epic proportions. Now that we've pointed the finger, can somebody give me a decent solution to the problem?

It's a catch 22, I think. Troops stay, the problems continue. The troops leave, Iraq devolves totally into a civil war. Country is farked. Sad... But I wish to hell that rather than electioneering they'd just pull the troops out of Iraq and put them into Afghanistan already, where we can win, we can stabalise the country, we can stop it from being the worlds largest supplier of heroin, and it is the country from where the 9/11 attacks were prepared for.

El Stuntman

Judt wrote:

Ok, so Iraq is a screwup of epic proportions. Now that we've pointed the finger, can somebody give me a decent solution to the problem?

It's a catch 22, I think. Troops stay, the problems continue. The troops leave, Iraq devolves totally into a civil war. Country is farked. Sad... But I wish to hell that rather than electioneering they'd just pull the troops out of Iraq and put them into Afghanistan already, where we can win, we can stabalise the country, we can stop it from being the worlds largest supplier of heroin, and it is the country from where the 9/11 attacks were prepared for.

feck heroin

we have a much more serious addiction - oil

Zambia

Mordeth wrote:

would you have liked an american military intervention in northern Ireland a couple of decades ago?

If the problem was on the scale as the two events I mentioned of course I would I would have accepted a Nazi intervention....

Would you rather die ....?

Wes I agree the Initial Invasion was wrong, I tell you what could Irish and other UN troops replace the current US & British Troops in Iraq. That suits everyone doesnt it?

InFront

Zambia232 wrote:

In essence I would like to see more interventions not less

Three things were intervened upon:
A violent dictator
Political and relative economic stability
Sectarian co-operation and peace on the ground

Instead of having the first one (ha! just wait) we now don't have the latter two. Not only was the intervention wrong to begin with as you say yourself above, it's also been a complete and total failure overall.

wes

Zambia232 wrote:

Wes I agree the Initial Invasion was wrong, I tell you what could Irish and other UN troops replace the current US & British Troops in Iraq. That suits everyone doesnt it?

You want the rest of the world to clean up there mess? Can we clean up there mess? Also it would make more sense to have a UN force made up of troops from Muslims countries, both Sunni and Shia.

I am not just talking about the initial invasion btw, but the criminal incompetence evident long after the invasion and that continues to this very day. They share a huge responsibility for the current mess, as do the insurgents and terrorists.

Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia need to be brought in to help, but the US won't talk to Iran and Syria due to them supporting terrorists (laughable considering the US supported plenty of terrorist and still does). Or perhaps implement the recommendations of the Iraq study group which was ignored by the US/UK in there latest example of sheer incompetence. See the US/UK are guilty of incompetence when they launched the invasion and there guilty of it again when they ignored the Iraq study group. My issue with them is that this isn't just the initial invasion, but there continued incompetence which has costs far too many lives. Its criminally stupid that the Iraq study was basically ignored.

Zambia

wes wrote:

You want the rest of the world to clean up there mess? Can we clean up there mess? Also it would make more sense to have a UN force made up of troops from Muslims countries, both Sunni and Shia.

Yes , its an impossible job but we still have troops doing it. I am sure if Arab nations wanted to submit troops they would be accepted (Iran I dont know).

If the world wants the removal of these troops they should call for it , but as has been mentioned could someone come up with another soloution.

Then we can send all those troops to Sudan.

Judt

Sudan, Afghanistan, The Congo. There's more screwed up places than soldiers to police them.

This whole "We shouldn't have to clean up their mess" thing is bull, particularly if you're calling for them to pull out - and thus exacerbate the mess. At the end of the day finger pointing doesn't save lives.

magick

Bertie Ahern and the Irish Government are complicit in destroying the lives of these young people and yet many of you who will no doubt vote for this shower of bastards in the upcoming election.
Everyone of the reasons Bush gave us for going to war were lies but that has not deterred our pathetic Taoiseach from contiuning to facilitate the escalation of violence by the U.S. in Iraq.

what a pile of leftist pulpit crap, firstly Bertie didnt invade Iraq. Second if ur gonna bring up the whole shannon thing , then why dont you include the UK, Rammstein Airforce Base in Germany as well as other airports the US uses. Oh and its the Sunnis and Shiites that are killing each other, not Rambo Bertie with Havoc Harney.

Frederico

magick wrote:

Oh and its the Sunnis and Shiites that are killing each other, not Rambo Bertie with Havoc Harney.

Oh of course, thats perfectly right, cos as soon as Saddam was 'deposed' they all started killing each in a frenzy... no wait thats wrong..


Sunni and Shiites uncomfortable with each other, lets see what do we do in this situation, a) fight the armor and tanks and experienced soldiers of our hated enemy or b) easy solution, take a few suicide bombers, bomb a few shrines and create a self perpetuating civil war, revenge breeding revenge. How about c) we do both.

Botched arrogant wars, botched foreign policy, shortsitedness, criminally bad decisions, the list goes on and on.

If you're a muslim and want to blow up a soft American target abroad, now you have the comfort that you whole town hates them, your whole province hates them, your whole country hates them and your whole region hates them.

Right next door you can go and take out your rage on them. If you just go and blow yourself in Iraq you bring your Great Satan, America and her allies another inch closer to humiliation, the more chaos there is the better for your cause. You have a focus for your rage. You are all bound together by the "war on terror".

It just boggles my mind when right wings come up with the "Oh and Sunni and Shiites just wanna kill each other, their problem" and try and wash their hands of it.

Its like when I hear right wing types in America saying 'support the troops' I just think of Goebels telling the German people the exact same thing during World War 2.


Maybe sometime in 1000 years, by some incredible coincidence, little lefty pouncy flowery fairy leaders will be, by some fluke, in charge of every single country, and the whole world will suddenly be at peace, every country will be like Sweden, and the few right wing people left will so disappointed because they don't get to watch any more fun 'shock and awes' on Fox.

Rather unlikely
/rambling speech over

magick

Sunni and Shiites uncomfortable with each other, lets see what do we do in this situation, a) fight the armor and tanks and experienced soldiers of our hated enemy or b) easy solution, take a few suicide bombers, bomb a few shrines and create a self perpetuating civil war, revenge breeding revenge. How about c) we do both.

Of course each group is doing it for diffeent reasons, Iraq is like the Yugoslavia of the middle east. The Shiites now are basically in charge of the interior ministry and with it, the "special" security forces that are going around killing the Sunnis, in return for this the Sunnis bomb Shiite targets.

Oh of course, thats perfectly right, cos as soon as Saddam was 'deposed' they all started killing each in a frenzy... no wait thats wrong..

Actually they did, not a frenzy but the early reports were there, but the US armed forces didnt clamp down fast enough.

wes

Zambia232 wrote:

Yes , its an impossible job but we still have troops doing it. I am sure if Arab nations wanted to submit troops they would be accepted (Iran I dont know).

If the world wants the removal of these troops they should call for it , but as has been mentioned could someone come up with another soloution.

Then we can send all those troops to Sudan.

Well Iran has to be involved, whether the US/UK and the rest of us like it or not. Its the only way things could work. Muslims troops are the way to go. It becomes a lot harder to blame the "Great Satan" and say its a crusade when Muslims troops are trying to help Iraq. The sad thing is that no Muslim nation seems willing to swallow there bloody pride and offer to help. The best thing for Iraq would be every Muslim country that is able should take over the security of Iraq with logistical/Supplies support from the international community. This would also engender a spirit of cooperation and may help with other situations.

As for Darfur, Muslim leaders (the ones with the capability to help that is) the world over have shown themselves hypocrites by not intervening there. Then this is to be expected, politicians are more often than not completely useless. The best thing here again would be a UN force heavily manned with Muslim troops. It would make it harder for Al Quada types to say its a western invasion.

Zambia

wes wrote:

Well Iran has to be involved, whether the US/UK and the rest of us like it or not. Its the only way things could work. Muslims troops are the way to go. It becomes a lot harder to blame the "Great Satan" and say its a crusade when Muslims troops are trying to help Iraq. The sad thing is that no Muslim nation seems willing to swallow there bloody pride and offer to help. The best thing for Iraq would be every Muslim country that is able should take over the security of Iraq with logistical/Supplies support from the international community. This would also engender a spirit of cooperation and may help with other situations.

This might work..

wes

Zambia232 wrote:

This might work..

Well its the best I could come up with . There might be other solutions, but no one is really volunteering them.

Also one thing to note historically Muslims tend not to as violent against Muslim occupiers. Anytime a nation that seen as a Christian nation (or an ally of Israel) is seen as a crusader (this isn't helped with Evangelical leaders in the US proclaiming themselves Christian Zionists, its not hard for the people in the Middle East to put 2 and 2 together). I am not saying there would no violence if Muslim nations went in, it would hopefully be reduced to a level that could managed, so a peaceful Iraq could be created.

The sad thing is that a lot of people on all sides will have to swallow a lot of pride, and to pretty much everyone involved pride seems to be more important than the lives of the people of Iraq.

stevedublin

Iran want at least the southern part of Iraq all right.

Frederico

magick wrote:

Actually they did, not a frenzy but the early reports were there, but the US armed forces didnt clamp down fast enough.

What early reports? this must have completely passed me by, because I found no evidence of it. Amidst and straight after the looting there were actual revenge killings, people taking out local Ba'athist members. There wasn't any sectarian strife for awhile.

It was deliberately fueled by people inside the country and outside the country to ferment chaos.

Give me 100 Catholics who are able to build bombs, are willing to sacrifice themselves and it wouldn't be very hard at all to start a civil war in Northern Ireland.

33 people died at Virginia Tech, what happened if the next day 20 people were shot on another campus, then 50 butchered in a school, after 2 weeks of that America would be in absolute chaos.

Its not just simple "Shiites and Sunnis going at it".

karen3212

Ok, so Iraq is a screwup of epic proportions. Now that we've pointed the finger, can somebody give me a decent solution to the problem?

It's a catch 22, I think. Troops stay, the problems continue. The troops leave, Iraq devolves totally into a civil war. Country is farked. Sad... But I wish to hell that rather than electioneering they'd just pull the troops out of Iraq and put them into Afghanistan already, where we can win, we can stabalise the country, we can stop it from being the worlds largest supplier of heroin, and it is the country from where the 9/11 attacks were prepared for.

Sorry, it's just an instinctive thing for me, but when I hear people saying that a war is a thing one can win I feel slightly sick, I can't really explain why though.
I think that the longer the foreign troops remain the more the hatred towards them will build. I really think they should at least give the Iraquis a timetable for withdrawal. It might assuage some people who feel that they are now at the mercy of a foreign power.

magick

yeah either war at best Iraq has 3 Autominious regions goverened by a central fedral government in Baghdad OR 3 seprate countries

Bottle_of_Smoke

Bertie Ahern and the Irish Government are complicit in destroying the lives of these young people and yet many of you who will no doubt vote for this shower of bastards in the upcoming election.

This is true but another unfortunate truth is that no other party we could vote for would remove US troops from Shannon. So it's pretty irrelevent in that respect

wes wrote:

Well Iran has to be involved, whether the US/UK and the rest of us like it or not. Its the only way things could work. Muslims troops are the way to go. It becomes a lot harder to blame the "Great Satan" and say its a crusade when Muslims troops are trying to help Iraq. The sad thing is that no Muslim nation seems willing to swallow there bloody pride and offer to help. The best thing for Iraq would be every Muslim country that is able should take over the security of Iraq with logistical/Supplies support from the international community. This would also engender a spirit of cooperation and may help with other situations

Yeah very good call here. Far too much pride to swallow as you said. Getting Muslim nations would be one thing but then America would have to hand over responsibilites to Muslims & I just don't see that going down

wes

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Yeah very good call here. Far too much pride to swallow as you said. Getting Muslim nations would be one thing but then America would have to hand over responsibilites to Muslims & I just don't see that going down

I reckon the idea's put forward by the Iraq study group would also be a good solution. Again it involved Iraq's neighbors to a lesser degree than I suggested, but in there version people get to save a lot more face and they still didn't go for it.

Looks like Neo-con politics is being put before peoples lives. The Iraq study group was Bi-partisan as well which shows that some smart people left and right in the US could work together to come up with a solution, but even then Bush and co decided against it and it may have actual worked.

Akrasia

wes wrote:

Well its the best I could come up with . There might be other solutions, but no one is really volunteering them.

that's because there can be loads of brilliant ideas, but they don't make any difference as long as the decision makers are still corrupt greedy self interested rich white American men.

The only ideas that will be tried are those that involve 'a bit more military force' or 'a lot more military force' and power will never be voluntarily relinquished.

Akrasia

karen3212 wrote:

Sorry, it's just an instinctive thing for me, but when I hear people saying that a war is a thing one can win I feel slightly sick, I can't really explain why though.
I think that the longer the foreign troops remain the more the hatred towards them will build. I really think they should at least give the Iraquis a timetable for withdrawal. It might assuage some people who feel that they are now at the mercy of a foreign power.

You are absolutely and 100% correct.

I heard a number of commentators say following the Iraqi invasion that "Americans don't mind their country going to war, but they insist absolutely that their army must win" (These commentators were exclusively from the right wing corporate media)

That is complete nonsense (I hope)

America has within it's means to militarily 'win' any war against any enemy they choose to fight. This is beyond question. The U.S. has enough offensive weaponry to destroy the entire planet many times over.
The problem is that in imperialist wars of aggression, to 'defeat' the 'enemy' it sometimes means the necessary genocide of the native population (it's how the Native americans were defeated after all)
America could have 'won' in vietnam if they had used nuclear weapons and wiped out the entire native resistance (and half the population of Cambodia while they were at it) Is this the kind of 'final solution' that pro war supporters want in Iraq?

When a terrorist is everyone who opposes an occupation army, who is left who isn't a terrorist?

Judt

"Let's send in Muslim troops and it'll all be ok!"

Wow, that's bull. You do know that the Para's who shot up the civil rights marchers were of the same religion as the people they killed? They were all Christian.

But no, you shout! The sectarianism in Northern Ireland was Catholics versus Protestants! Yes, I say, and in the Muslim world you have different sects that don't exactly get along. Add on to that racial issues, such as the difference between an Arab and a Persian. Throw the power politics of the region on top of that, from Turkey and the Kurds to the Saudi's eyeing up Iran... Well, to say "Send in Muslim troops" is a bit like saying "The Iraqi's will welcome us with open arms." Wishful thinking.