Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe non-stop violence in Iraq is overshadowing a humanitarian crisis, with eight million Iraqis--nearly one in three--in need of emergency aid, says a new report released by the international agency Oxfam and NCCI, a network of about 80 international and 200 local NGOs established in Baghdad in 2003 to help assess and meet the needs of the Iraqi population.
The report, based on research from the United Nations, the Iraqi government, and nonprofit organizations Oxfam works with or finances, offers little original data. But it provides one of the most comprehensive pictures to date of the human crisis within Iraq and what it describes as a slow-motion response from Iraq's government, the United States, the United Nations, and the European Union.
The numbers presented by Oxfam offer a stark contrast to the picture of steadily improving conditions painted by the Iraqi government and the US military over the past several months, as Megan Greenwell notes in the Washington Post.
According to the report:
•Four million Iraqis – 15 percent - cannot buy enough to eat.
•70 percent are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50 percent in 2003.
•28 percent of children are malnourished, compared to 19 percent before the invasion.
•92 percent of Iraqi children suffer learning problems.
•43 percent of Iraqis live in "absolute poverty," earning less than one dollar a day.
•More than two million people have been displaced inside Iraq.
•A further two million Iraqis have become refugees, mainly in Syria and Jordan.
Watch this brief BBC report on the report for a visual sense of the depths of the crisis.
Up until 2004, Oxfam had staff working inside Iraq but withdrew them due to chronic security problems. It now supports domestic and international aid agencies which are able to operate in Iraq from an office in Amman, Jordan.
Many humanitarian organizations refuse to accept money from governments with troops in Iraq for fear of jeopardizing both their security and independence. Therefore the report urges international donor governments that have not sent troops to Iraq to provide increased emergency funding for humanitarian action.
The solutions proposed by Oxfam, which opposed the American invasion, include far more aid by the Iraqi government and from abroad and the decentralizing of the distribution of food and medical supplies. The group also called for a doubling of the monthly $100 cash allowances to households headed by widows.
The best way to halt this growing humanitarian crisis is, of course, to end the war and occupation. Toward that goal, activists are spending August putting pressure on members of Congress when they are on recess in their home districts; are planning for a week of coordinated nonviolent actions in September and are organizing a raft of local and national actions on October 21 to highlight the connections between the war in Iraq and the global warming crisis. There are also a series of good bills well worth supporting being put forth by those few Democratic legislators who actually want to end the war.
But in the interim before this bloody war is finally over a donation to Oxfam will help the group continue to provide relief to the people of Iraq.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
PETER: The best way to halt this growing humanitarian crisis is, of course, to end the war and occupation.
Maybe.....but more wishful thinking than likely! Unless......one truly believe Iraq will revert immediately back to the days of Saddam and the Iraqi security forces can impose order and eliminate sectarian killings. And, I guess there are folks, PETER perhaps, that think of Pre-2003 Iraq as some kind of heaven on earth for Iraqi Kurds, Marsh Shiites, and mainstream Shiites?
More than likely, if we leave (not something I'm against if Bush decides to throw in the towel, even without Dems cutting off funding) anytime soon, a lot of Iraqis won't be suffering after we leave, they will be dead!
Facts are, there are places around the global where our military isn't engaged and yet, huge no. of folks are suffering......Sudan and Zimbabwe come to mind.
Posted by Happy at 07/31/2007 @ 6:41pm
Needless to say, the US is not the cause of all the world's problems--but it is the immediate cause of what's happening in Iraq. I absolutely believe that ending the military occupation is a necessary precondition for ending the humanitarian crisis. There needs to be many more things taking place of course--international peacekeeping troops, maybe under the banner of the Arab League, a massive infusion of humanitarian aid, a competent administration, other things I'm no expert enough to be aware of--but ending the war and occupation is central. And, yes, the situation wd still be horrible in all likelyhood but not worse than the current course.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 07/31/2007 @ 6:47pm
Happy, nobody thinks Iraq was "Heaven on Earth" before the U.S. invasion. Great rhetoric though, impressive. It's reasuring to know that you'd be for troop withdrawal, as long as Bush is for it first. Way to think for yourself. An excellent point about the many places in the "global" where people are suffering. Guess what though, they don't have the 2nd largest oil reserve in the global! THAT's why we didn't go promote democracy in those places!
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/31/2007 @ 6:52pm
There needs to be many more things taking place of course--international peacekeeping troops, maybe under the banner of the Arab League, a massive infusion of humanitarian aid, a competent administration,....
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 07/31/2007 @ 6:47pm
I caught a blurb of news today or yesterday (Boomer memory on the wane!) that said an "international" peacekeepers, mostly or exclusively African Union, have been `authorized' for duty in Darfur. The issue there seems simple.....Arab Muslims killing Black Muslims w/Gov't complicity....and yet, it took how long?
Even if Bush says, let's do it PETER's way right now, any guess how long before we can actually withdrawal? And how chaotic Iraq COULD BECOME when all the bad guys, far more than in Darfur, make their own determinations of what this will all mean (of US withdraw and replaced by peacekeepers)? I honestly wish it COULD BE as simple as it pens out on paper/blog!
Posted by Happy at 07/31/2007 @ 7:15pm
There are two ugly choices and one teeny-tiny bit of hope choice-
1. We stay'ish...for an untold number of years, but better managed and with a growing Iraqi-led security force. Losing hundreds, if not thousands more American lives and dumping billions more in aid, most of which will be lost or stolen.
2. We get out. Iraq collapses into full-scale civil war, between Iranian backed Shiia and Saudi backed Sunni. Horrific and with 10s of thousands of IRAQI dead...but no more American. Afterwards we come in with aid to the surviving country...maybe.
3. We get out and a political solution is brokered between the Iranians and Saudis and things improve. Frankly, I see this possibility along the lines of a Mike Gravel winning the Democratic nomination.
Two of three end the American deaths...the other means more and no changes in Iraq regardless. So...might as well go for #2 and #3.
Posted by Mask at 07/31/2007 @ 7:25pm
ZERO -- I don't disagree. Didn't really mean to say, if I did, that the refugee problem will be halted by a US pullout. The pandora's box analogy seems right to me--my main pt is simply that an end to the war and US occupation is a predicate to the long road toward stemming the humanitarian crisis.
HAPPY -- No one said it wd be simple. But that's not an excuse for inaction.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 07/31/2007 @ 7:28pm
George Bush now wants to sell more weapons to Saudi Arabia, he is arming Al Qaida to fight the Sunnis - or was that arming the Sunnis to fight Al Qaida. He is attacking the Kurds to appease Turkey. Conservatives still have nothing intelligent to contribute to the discussion: "if Americans leave Iraq then Iraqis will get hurt". RIGHT.
Posted by conshame at 07/31/2007 @ 7:33pm
I absolutely believe that ending the military occupation is a necessary precondition for ending the humanitarian crisis. There needs to be many more things taking place of course--international peacekeeping troops, maybe under the banner of the Arab League, a massive infusion of humanitarian aid, a competent administration,
yes on all of these except Arab League peace keepers. that one made me chuckle. that one is not likely to happen. arabs have never been able to agree on anything, because they all have conflicting interests.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/31/2007 @ 8:38pm
Though there is little doubt the number of refugees fleeing Iraq has increased because of the spike in sectarian violence from early 2006 the headline "it is worse than you think" is probably only true for those who have no knowledge of the the long term nature of these cross border refugee flows and the reality of Arab solidarity and cultural affinity. The flow of refugees into Syria for instance was occurring long before March 2003 and from Feb 2006 up until now and Syria has been able to handle that situation and adapt to it.
Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon have also been destinations for Iraq's refugees. It is more akin to crossing state boundaries in a nation like the US or Australia than a radical movement to a totally new environment.
The internal displacement of Iraqis is a cause for great concern which should in the first instance be addressed by the Iraq government, particularly in respect to giving immediate aid.
To get a better perspective of the overall refugee situation, than Cockburn's report of the internal displacement of Iraqis gives, a good place to start is Amnesty International's July 26th 2007 report on Iraq:http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140362007
It would seen on the surface of it that if anyone was genuinely concerned with the situation and was not simply using it as a means to promote another agenda, then the best way for the US to spend its money on this problem would be to provide better security and infrastructure in Iraq so that both classes of displaced Iraqis could return to their homes. That solution is so obvious it hardly needs to spelled out.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/31/2007 @ 9:02pm
Two of three end the American deaths...the other means more and no changes in Iraq regardless. So...might as well go for #2 and #3.
There is a fourth option:
Withdraw 3/4 of the troops immediately. The remaining 1/4 used to train Iraqis to do their own police work, provide humanitarian assistance to Iraqis and protecting others who are doing the same, enforce oil sharing agreements between the Iraqis, and deter Iran.
I think this is the option that will ultimately be pursued, and even Republicans will see the wisdom of this after September's report.
American presence on the streets of Iraq is the chief cause of the insurgency, violence, and humanitarian crises. Changing this 'war' mission to a 'humanitarian' one is the real challenge we must face.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/31/2007 @ 9:07pm
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 07/31/2007 @ 7:28pm: "No one said it wd be simple. But that's not an excuse for inaction."
Our troops in Iraq + Bush would disagree with Mr. Rothberg's on the present Surge strategy as "inaction", much less "simple". It may even be the only and best ACTION for this point in the sands of Iraq and greater Middle East.
Posted by is is IS at 07/31/2007 @ 9:27pm
It may even be the only and best ACTION for this point in the sands of Iraq and greater Middle East.
Posted by IS IS IS 07/31/2007 @ 9:27pm | ignore this person
yes, it's been going just swimmingly. civil war in Iraq, what a boon. this is just the best. hundreds of thousand dead Iraqis. we have proved we can cause more dead Iraqis than Saddam, aren't we smart.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/31/2007 @ 9:34pm
Without the cooperation of Iran there is no way to end the instability, bloodshed in Iraq. Sad, but all too true. Until Iran is engaged in a serious manner there will be not be a situation congenial to establishing some sort of order in Iraq.
And that's only a start. Syria must be engaged. Turkey must be given some sort of guarantees against a Kurdish insurgency.
It's a mess. The US is not going to get everything it wants. It will be lucky to get anything positive or beneficial out of the situation. But one thing is for sure: The longer US troops occupy Iraq, the worse the anti-American sentiment among Muslims will become. It's nothing more than fuel on the fire having US troops occupy a Muslim nation. There's no getting out quick; it's going to take time, but the longer the US refuses to face reality and deal with the situation on the ground, the longer it will be before the troops can get out of there.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/31/2007 @ 10:11pm
Posted by IS IS IS 07/31/2007 @ 9:27pm
Curious, any evidence that "our troops in Iraq" support the "present Surge strategy"...or is it merely that they carry it out?
Posted by Mask at 07/31/2007 @ 10:52pm
Posted by ZERO 07/31/2007 @ 11:04pm
Zero your position is all analysis with no real solution. The most likely, best outcome will only be obtained if the US spends a little more of its vast wealth in providing adequate security and infrastructure solutions. The solution that you and others offer is naive, in that the Arab nations don't have the economic and technical power to effect the changes that are a necessary part of the solution, even if they were so inclined and irresponsible in that you admit that your solutions will probably lead to greater bloodshed and suffering for the innocents in Iraq.
My interest,captured by the stories of ex-patriot Iraqis who also fled their country, has always been for a better Iraq for all Iraqis. Most of you fellas are either pacifists or doctrinaire left wing ideologues who pretend to weep over the fate of this people but are apparently more intent on making sure your own intellectual position is vindicated rather than seeing the lives of Iraqis improve.
I might be full of shit from your perspective but I care. Something I look for in vain here. All I find is gloating over the number of your soldiers or Iraqis that have been killed. The more deaths than can be attributed to this US initiated war the happier you ghouls seem to be.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/01/2007 @ 12:08am
Posted by MADLIB 08/01/2007 @ 01:14am
Maddie, you of course confirm that my gripe with some of you Americans is not without basis. Maybe not all the 70 percenters share your perspectives nor do I assume all the 30% should be nominated for sainthood, however I still have hope that despite your mob of "can't be done - too hard and don't care" the US will continue as a nation to care about what sort of world it bequeaths to succeeding generations by continuing to do something about. Europe and Asia would not have the sound and stable societies it now has if the Americans of those post WW2 days were as short sighted as you are.
It seems to me that Iraq is a good place to show the world your sort of American, fortunately, is irrelevant in the formulation and implementation of US foreign policy.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/01/2007 @ 03:13am
Facts are, there are places around the global where our military isn't engaged and yet, huge no. of folks are suffering......Sudan and Zimbabwe come to mind.
Posted by HAPPY 07/31/2007 @ 6:41pm
HAPPY, Since when did you give a damn about people suffering from other countries or better still, anything other than your investment portfolio. Things under Sadam were bad in Iraq to be sure, but the reason we removed Sadam had nothing to do with the way he was treating people in his country, otherwise, we would have been out of the there by now.
As you mentioned, look at Zimbabwa and Sudan. There's no money in it, so the U.S. doesn't bother. There is money to be made off Iraq now and in the future.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/01/2007 @ 07:25am
IS -- I know Bush would disagree with me but I've seen copious evidence that many of the tropps on the ground are not at all in support of the surge. What's your evidence that the troops are in favor of the policy?
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/01/2007 @ 08:18am
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 08/01/2007 @ 08:18am
PETER, I asked that almost 10 hours ago...and really wasn't expecting an answer.
IS IS IS' view of the troops' support of the Surge is baseless, and I think he knows it. If there was polling showing the troops support the Surge...the Administration would have it out and be hammering the Dems with it in preparation for Petraeus' report in a month.
Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 08:39am
You would expect Conservatism in the military would erode, after years of being pushed around like pawns out in a danger zone, by a twit, based on lies.
The US Military has long fostered Conservative Republicanism in it's ranks, particularly the officers, so they'd be gung ho to kill even if it is for no good reason and based on obvious lies. Certainly in retrospect it was shortsighted and stupid.
Posted by conshame at 08/01/2007 @ 09:12am
The US Military has long fostered Conservative Republicanism in it's ranks, particularly the officers, so they'd be gung ho to kill even if it is for no good reason and based on obvious lies. Certainly in retrospect it was shortsighted and stupid.
Posted by CONSHAME 08/01/2007 @ 09:12am
(to show I'm bipartisan, like IS IS IS' statement, I'll say--)
Prove that, CONSHAME.
Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 09:34am
BAGHDAD - Iraq's largest Sunni Arab political bloc announced its withdrawal from the government Wednesday, undermining efforts to seek reconciliation among the country's rival factions, and two bombing attacks in Baghdad killed at least 67 people.
every day, in every way, things are getting better in Iraq.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/01/2007 @ 09:48am
"It's getting better all the time!"
Victory has never been so beautiful - or flammable.
Posted by chimichenga at 08/01/2007 @ 10:41am
Even though most Iraqi's naturally want us to leave, the majority are not in a hurry for us to leave immediately.
In 'this' country, which is a democracy, it is what the 'US' voter wants!
Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2007 @ 12:10pm
Even though most Iraqi's naturally want us to leave, the majority are not in a hurry for us to leave immediately.
and how would you know that?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/01/2007 @ 12:11pm
JR,
It was a poll of Iraqis cited by LvLiberty conducted by D3. It contradicts the Pew Research poll which has more credibility; and more importantly, the US voter wants our troops home now.
These right-wingers like LvLiberty are looking for 'any' excuse to stay there and continue to pad defense industry bank accounts at the taxpayer's expense. When you look at what the defense industry lobby is saying, it is identical to this right wing nonsense that "if we can just stay a little longer we will 'win'".
You can't 'win' over an insurgency that doesn't want us in their country, as they see us as invaders and occupiers, so this "winning th war" nonsense is just cold war, machismo, "we are the big bad USA" type of rhetoric.
When you asked these guys what they mean by 'winning', that's when they fall on their face. "Winning", it seems, has been redefined from routing enemy soldiers to some nebulous "stop all resistance" sort of thing, which we all know is impossible as long as their land is occupied by us.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2007 @ 12:33pm
Posted by METTEYYA 08/01/2007 @ 12:33pm | ignore this person
this from the folks who never get tired telling us how the polls don't matter.
you are correct, what matters is what goes on right here in the US. that we have to stay and fix what we so carelessly destroyed, a country AND a people, is another big lie. we cannot fix AND destroy at the same time, Kali like.
I like the way Bush's appointees are so reasonable and intelligent during their confirmation hearings, only to turn into the same crap when actually in office. just like their boss.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/01/2007 @ 1:08pm
More than likely, if we leave (not something I'm against if Bush decides to throw in the towel, even without Dems cutting off funding) anytime soon, a lot of Iraqis won't be suffering after we leave, they will be dead!
. . . . .
Posted by HAPPY 07/31/2007 @ 6:41pm
AND THEY ***WON'T*** BE DEAD IF WE STAY???...
How stupid can you get. (Pretty, evidently.)
Posted by w_m_bear at 08/01/2007 @ 1:25pm
How stupid can you get. (Pretty, evidently.)
Posted by W_M_BEAR 08/01/2007 @ 1:25pm
Whatever you say......just stupid enough to be self-employed for 10 years and not having to kiss even stupider bosses' asses! And you?
Posted by Happy at 08/01/2007 @ 1:41pm
c'mon guys
just gather up a few of your billionaire types, a couple of corporate sponsors from the good ol' military-industrial cabal and maybe Bob Geldof for cover and BUY THE COUNTRY.
if you still can't afford it, just borrow some more trillions from the chinese--they'll be VERY happy to bankroll the "effort".
we'd have our first TRULY-BRANDED COUNTRY! imagine how beautiful mesopotamia would look with a great big nike swoosh tattooed on its soul.
Luxuria, Gula, Avaritia, Acedia, Ira, Invidia, and Superbia--it could become the NEW VEGAS (if you could get the electrical grid going.
'scuse the hopeless cynicism, but after decades of US meddling (remember 1812?) that's all we outlanders have left.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/01/2007 @ 1:57pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/01/2007 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person
the real meddling by the Us started around 1880 and has continued to this day.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/01/2007 @ 4:59pm
I have been described as a fellow who reads some books. here is what I'm reading now.
"Spreading the American Dream, American Economic and Cultural Expansion, 1890-1945." Emily S. Rosenberg, Hill and Wang, 1982
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/01/2007 @ 5:43pm
Posted by HAPPY 08/01/2007 @ 1:41pm
What work do you do happy? I have heard you mention stocks like a day trader and collecting rents. Is that your work or do you do other things?
Posted by srjenkins at 08/01/2007 @ 8:23pm
Posted by METTEYYA 08/01/2007 @ 12:10pm
The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/01/2007 @ 8:26pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/01/2007 @ 8:26pm
Not to get in the middle of your discussion with Khalid Abdul Muhammad...
but I'd say "representative liberal democracy" over "republic", since a republic CAN technically encompass all non-democratic elements of the "people's democratic republic" farce of the Communists to the "Islamic republics" of the Muslim theocrats.
Posted by Mask at 08/01/2007 @ 8:49pm
Words have meanings. Democracy means rule where people govern themselves without intermediaries. The U.S. isn't a democracy nor does it support "democracy" anywhere in the world.
There is a word for "representative liberal democracy" and that word is republic. I don't like your bastardization of the English language anymore than I like it from Supreme Leaders or ayatollahs. Why use three words when we already have one word that does the job?
Posted by srjenkins at 08/01/2007 @ 9:49pm
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 08/01/2007 @ 08:18am "I've seen copious evidence that many of the tropps on the ground are not at all in support of the surge. What's your evidence that the troops are in favor of the policy?"
Posted by MASK 08/01/2007 @ 08:39am "really wasn't expecting an answer."
Unlike you fulltimers or career bloggers, realtime blogging is a luxury I haven't been blessed with. Drive-by is IS IS IS's style, oh, yea!
In good faith, I searched for fresh goods on "troop reenlistment rates" and came up with a July 11th White House Press Briefing. Not hard statistics but something. Since the 11th, reports by the NY Times and by Michael Yon, an ex-Green Beret fulltiming in Iraq, both provide credible sense that the troops are alright w/their current gigs and morale is not an issue!
MR. SNOW: Well, okay, if you want to take a look at the overall recruitment levels, it's still over the quota for the year. But what I wanted to point out to you, Ed -- and please listen to this part -- it's the people who are fighting who are, in fact, signing up in much higher numbers than quota. Why is that? Ask yourself the question, because it's an important question. Americans are curious about their young men and women who have placed themselves in harm's way; something's going on. And in some cases, they're beginning to see military progress, and they're also beginning to see exposed the brutality of the people who have come across the borders to try to destroy the situation in Iraq and try to destroy the democracy in Iraq. All of those are pieces people are going to look at.
Posted by is is IS at 08/02/2007 @ 12:14am
Posted by IS IS IS 08/02/2007 @ 12:14am
And Snow is a reliable source of information? Perhaps you missed this article in the Christian Science Monitor - and what I find fascinating is this quote:
"Army officials have expanded incentive programs to keep soldiers in, raising the ceilings on reenlistment bonuses for soldiers in specific jobs from $15,000 to $20,000. It's also paying as much as $150,000 to retain soldiers in special-forces jobs.
In addition, the service has created an extra bonus of $7,500 for those who reenlist during fiscal year 2007. Many of these bonuses are tax-free if the reenlistment occurs in a war zone.
A recent Associated Press review of bonus programs shows that the Army and Marine Corps will spend more than $1 billion on reenlistment bonuses during fiscal 2007, up from $174 million in 2003."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0502/p01s01-usmi.html
Posted by srjenkins at 08/02/2007 @ 12:39am
oh, what was your question again:
Ask yourself the question, because it's an important question. Americans are curious about their young men and women who have placed themselves in harm's way; something's going on.
Bribery? Turning the U.S. Army into a mercenary force? Perhaps they need to offer six figure bonuses to special ops guys because that's what Black Water is going to offer them?
You people are real good at telling half the story. Seems a little less rosy now doesn't it?
Posted by srjenkins at 08/02/2007 @ 12:42am
"I am still reeling from the claim yesterday by a poster here that the flight of 1/7th of the population of Iraq corresponds to a "natural flow" of people that's historically regular in that region. How ridiculous!"
Posted by ZERO 08/01/2007 @ 11:55am
Some of us do have to work to keep the wolf from the door Zero or I would have returned sooner to make sure your reeling progressed to say the prostrate position. Anyway make sure you are holding onto something solid when you read this. It's from Wikipedia and if you really want to educate yourself you can google up the references yourself. Once you get a bit steady on your feet that is:
"Throughout the past 30 years, there have been a growing number of refugees fleeing Iraq and settling throughout the world, peaking recently with the latest Iraq war. The Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988, the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the first Gulf War and subsequent conflicts all generated hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees. Iran also provided asylum for 1,400,000 Iraqi refugees who had been uprooted as a result of the Persian Gulf War (1990–91). The United Nations estimates that nearly 2 million have fled the country since 2003. [1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_Iraq
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/02/2007 @ 12:52am
2007 Iraq poll [tinyurl.com]
Posted by LVLIBERTY
That is a very informative and extensive poll. It was a Feb-Mar 2007 sample taken before the "surge" was fully implemented and probably a little before the reports about Sunni insurgent defections to the Iraq government and US forces began to trickle out. Anyway it is a warts and all poll.
A couple of interesting things. The high 90+ % who rejected sectarianism. That sort of gives the lie to the claim that the Iraqis are in a 1000+ year Sunni versus Shia jihad and thus, we are "reliably" informed, Western forces are out of their depth in an "eternal" always ready to explode bloodbath of sectarianism. The other was that only 9% blame Bush for the violence but much higher percentages blame American soldiers. Two things flow from that. (i) There is a great mission field for American liberals and progressives in Iraq. (ii) Petraeus is on the right track in transforming the practice of kicking Iraqi doors in, to living amongst and respecting the "natives".
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/02/2007 @ 01:36am
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/01/2007 @ 9:49pm
SRJ, I don't consider it "bastardization" to use a more descriptive term, rather than a simple term which has been co-opted by dictatorships. Neither the Soviet-style states nor Iran could legitimately use the term "representative liberal democracy"...but they COULD get away with "republic" by claiming that the people ARE being represented by intermediaries and that they were elected (though they were the ONLY choice on the ballot).
Just saying.
Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 10:04am
soldiers are not trained to think for themselves. quite the opposite. how anyone would expect an independent assessment from the troops is beyond me.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 10:05am
Posted by IS IS IS 08/02/2007 @ 12:14am
Doesn't prove your point, IS IS. Still not evidence that the troops support the POLICY.
It would in fact seem to support the idea that the troops support their fellow TROOPS! In other words, they are re-enlisting to go back to help their buddies still over there fighting, and not leave them in the lurch.
You MAY still be right....but re-enlistment rates don't prove that. A poll of the troops and their view of the occupation would.
Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 10:06am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/02/2007 @ 10:05am
I didn't realize we had ROBOTS in our military now....Cool!
Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 10:07am
generations by continuing to do something about. Europe and Asia would not have the sound and stable societies it now has if the Americans of those post WW2 days were as short sighted as you are.
It seems to me that Iraq is a good place to show the world your sort of American, fortunately, is irrelevant in the formulation and implementation of US foreign policy.
Except that US presence in Iraq exacerabates the problem. It provides a recruiting ground for al-Qaida and interferes with any possible Sunni-Shi'ite reconciliation since the Sunnis are dead set against the presence of an occupying army. For example, one of the by-products of the surge was an increase in Shi'ite deaths in Baghdad at the hands of bombing attacks because US forces dispersed the Mahdi army.
"Throughout the past 30 years, there have been a growing number of refugees fleeing Iraq and settling throughout the world, peaking recently with the latest Iraq war.
That last bit undercuts your argument. The point is that our invasion of Iraq created a huge spike in Iraqi refugees that can hardly be considered part of a historic movement of peoples.
Though there is little doubt the number of refugees fleeing Iraq has increased because of the spike in sectarian violence from early 2006 the headline "it is worse than you think" is probably only true for those who have no knowledge of the the long term nature of these cross border refugee flows and the reality of Arab solidarity and cultural affinity. The flow of refugees into Syria for instance was occurring long before March 2003 and from Feb 2006 up until now and Syria has been able to handle that situation and adapt to it.
Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon have also been destinations for Iraq's refugees. It is more akin to crossing state boundaries in a nation like the US or Australia than a radical movement to a totally new environment.
The UN refugee report estimated that 7% of the population had fled that country since the US invasion of 2003. Are you actually asserting that 7% in four years is even remotely comparable to prior refugee flows? The fact that Jordanian and Syrian policy towards refugee has been hardening recently shows that this is much more serious than prior refugee flows.
Posted by brunowe at 08/02/2007 @ 10:17am
I didn't realize we had ROBOTS in our military now....Cool!
Posted by MASK
It's difficult to stay in if you're not. The same goes for the corporate culture. To fit in you keep your mouth shut, go with the flow, do as you're told. Otherwise you stick out, and in such a culture individuals are not tolerated. It's called conformity. Some people can do it, others can't. I'm guessing you would fit in perfectly.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/02/2007 @ 11:12am
What work do you do happy? I have heard you mention stocks like a day trader and collecting rents. Is that your work or do you do other things?
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/01/2007 @ 8:23pm
Like our liberal Jack-of-all-Trade JR, I am similar but focused on financial investments and anything real estate...both of which were in my `career-building' phase.
Incidentally, bought my first rent house almost 30 yrs ago w/a no-questions asked VA assumption (anybody even remember these?)! Teach your children to start investing EARLY! My parents didn't...one of those rare HAPPY self-starters! :)
When Houston crashed w/$8 oil in 1986-87, I put all available cash into more rental properties....S&Ls' were desperate to unload and all my purchases were financed 100%. My cash (not much, <$25k) was used to rehab/renovate post-purchase. Yes, No-Money-Down can be done when blood is in the streets! Haven't stopped buying/selling properties for my own account since!
Leaving the corp. world, I built 2 custom homes and still own two lots w/my company sign on it looking for built-to-suit customers. Have done a few remodels along the way.
Mostly, I am today, a financial investor and landlord.
But NO, I'm NOT a day trader but a very active investor. I DO enter one or two trade orders per day but most expire w/out execution. Just yesterday, I picked up shares in Amer. Home Mortgage REIT at $1.04--a stock that lost 90% in a couple of days due to liquidity and general market concerns. This morning, it is up to $1.80! NOT bad, but I'll hang on to see if it gets to ~$4 to $6. Maybe some will recall, a couple of weeks ago I unloaded some housing stocks when I felt more shit was going to hit the fan, AND IT HAS! This is what I do!
Mostly I invest for the medium term, say 1 to 3 yrs, on generally turn-around stocks....Contrarian at heart! Conventional wisdom is just not my cup of tea! BTW, buying AHM (the $1.04 stock) is more in line w/speculating, a small part of my LARGE risk taking....it could go belly up!
I mention all of this not to gloat....it means nothing....none of you know me personally! But I do hope to influence however few of you.....that success CAN BE BUILT slowly and over time and that one has to take risks!
On Real Estate, my first LOVE, those of you in crashing real estate markets need to be thinking about buying when nobody else is.....but your economy must have long-term positives!
WOW, I can't believe I wrote the whole thing.....Heheheh!
Posted by Happy at 08/02/2007 @ 11:13am
PETER: On humanitarian disasters........
Today's WSJ editorialized on the UN-authorized peacekeepers for Darfur...titled "Spectators to Genocide"
It seems the "concession" to Sudan, granted under heavy pressure from China and Russia, to secure the unanimous Security Council vote, will severely limit the troop's ability to do much. They CAN'T seize weapons but are to "monitor" them......laughable if it weren't for the seriousness of the situation! The threat of sanctions, GONE! All appearances of doing something but no will to enforce actual intended outcome! Sound similar to our Congress!
WSJ is of the opinion that a repeat of Rwanda & Bosnia is brewing when UN troops stood by powerless while the killings continued.
I do hope the future as `seen' by the WSJ is WRONG!
Posted by Happy at 08/02/2007 @ 11:26am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/02/2007 @ 11:12am
Gee, Empty, sure wish YOU could have "conformed" and stuck it out onboard the USS "Caine"....
maybe a few less bank tellers would have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder!
Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 12:02pm
The Bush Administration made its bed, and now we are all in it.
Posted by ZERO 08/02/2007 @ 12:29pm
The rancor over the Bush Administration by the Left from Day 1, is such that, I can NOT differentiate most of your views from Anti-Bush or truly anti-current approaches!
FYI: The UN was, long before Bush 43, remains and always will be a mess! I'm an optimist through and through (HAPPY, really!) but when it comes to the U.N., I turn into a Jackal (sp?)!
I'm for the UN out of the US and for America to dial back financial aid to something proportional to our global population! Better, eliminate it altogether and put the money into individual humanitarian organizations....Red/Crescent Cross, Doctors w/out Borders, religious organizations w/large & active aid components, etc.
Posted by Happy at 08/02/2007 @ 12:41pm
The rancor over the Bush Administration by the Left from Day 1,
how do you square this with the 90% appro rating Bush had at one time?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 2:17pm
Off-topic but a follow up to my own post @ 11:26am when I stated this company could go "belly up"....All in a days' excitements....wonder what happens tomorrow?
American Home Shutting Down: Report
By Laurie Kulikowski
TheStreet.com Staff Reporter
8/2/2007 5:19 PM EDT
American Home Mortgage (AHM - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating) is shutting down, according to published reports.
The Melville, N.Y., mortgage lender told Wall Street Tuesday it had been cut off by its lenders and was considering alternatives including liquidation....
Posted by Happy at 08/02/2007 @ 5:32pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/01/2007 @ 11:45pm
The problem Rio is your getting your information from Michelle Malkin - the same woman who thinks racial-profiling and internment camps are a good idea.
Even a casual search on Martin & Gracia Burnham will reveal that Gracia didn't die and that Martin died in the fire-fight to rescue them. It will also reveal that they are members of New Tribes Mission, an organization who has a history of converting indigenous tribal members and then sending them on manhunts to forcibly bring other indigenous tribal members into their camps - where they frequently die of diseases from which they have not developed any immunities. Presumably the idea is that they might hear the Gospel and be "saved" before they pass on.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that makes Christianity distasteful to people. It's the triumph of ideology over compassion, and it's a perversion of the Gospel.
As for the Korean hostages, you simply can't claim this issue isn't being covered in the media and organizations like Human Rights Watch have condemned it. So, what exactly is the problem again?
Could it be Michelle's writing style that is the problem? Who's "innocent", who's "blood-thirsty", who's a true practitioner of peace, Michelle? Quick please tell me - and don't bother with facts - I like my issues black and white like they appear in the Bible.
Being a Christian doesn't mean you have to be an idiot.
Example: http://www.survival-international.org/news/125
Posted by srjenkins at 08/02/2007 @ 6:54pm
Posted by HAPPY 08/02/2007 @ 11:13am
I just read in your post you describing yourself as self-employed, and it made me pause. Let's imagine a scenario:
You are born into the Pritzker family. At the age of 18, you take your money and start investing in stocks and real estate - you make enough that you are not taking from your principle. Are you self employed?
Let's say you then move on and develop a portfolio of rental properties and hire a management company. Now that you are only managing your stock portfolio, are you self-employed?
Then, you come across the next Warren Buffet, and decide to let him make all your investment decisions. You now are effectively making no decisions. Are you still self-employed?
There are three questions here. First, does being able to support yourself in society count as being employed? Are people living off trust funds employed? I think the answer is no. Employed means something else.
Second, does making decisions mean your employed? Does it make a difference if you are making the decisions or you make a one time decision to have others make the decisions for you?
Third, what does time mean when you talk of being employed? If you manage all your stock purchases and in managing your rental properties, you are working - calling plumbers, advertising for tenants, or whatever - like a full-time job, is that employed? What about if it is part-time? What if you spend less than 10 hours a week managing you stock portfolio and these properties?
Then, there is also the question of whether collecting rents is work. Some people make claims that living off rents or stock dividends/sales are no different from people that live off trust funds.
I understand the counter-argument about risk and capital and so forth - but the term "employed" is where I get hung up. If I am your tenant working 40 hours a day slinging hash and I give 30% of my take home check to you to live in a property you own and you effectively do nothing but hire a painter once a year (other than own the property), whose employed here?
The argument is that capitalism is at heart a pyramid scheme of exploitation. Your discussion about slow, steady progress can sound like your slow climb to put yourself in a position to be able to exploit others.
I know you don't think about it this way, and I'm not sure it is fair framing. But there is something to this line of thinking, and I'm curious how you respond to it.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/02/2007 @ 7:37pm
SRJ,
You've got quite a talent to raise questions....like the "democracy ?=? representative republic" series w/MASK.
My definition of Self-Employed is first and foremost, actually doing something. So, living off trust funds being a playboy/girl don't count. Having Warren B. manage your capital while you golf away the time also don't count. However, if one takes the time to keep current on business news, trends and actually think about investing/divesting decisions and carries them out, that's self-employed. You might say, "employed" by your own capital!
On being a landlord, collected rent is defined by the IRS as `passive income', generally a good thing (avoids SSI & Medicare taxes for one) but unless one has a Tenant from Heaven, most definitely NOT the case in low-rent cities like Houston where any family making over $40~$50k per year, can buy, there is work involved. Behind filing an average of one or two evictions per year, are many, many dealings with the trouble tenants and of course, rehab the mess they almost always leave behind.
You liken capitalism to a pyramid and I can sympathize w/that view; however, you must recognize that for the bulk of the people, there is nothing standing in their way. I didn't start as a scion of Pritzker, had a career Air Force father and secretary mother, very middle class!
I have always lived way below my means and saved/invested. It means controlling the `want' impulse....That sacrifice over decades, I'd say, have earned me the right to be closer to the top of the pyramid than the bottom.
Unusual questions!!!!
Posted by Happy at 08/02/2007 @ 9:23pm
Posted by HAPPY 08/02/2007 @ 9:23pm
I read a rabbi once that made the argument that life, and particularly religion, is about asking good questions. When we stop asking questions and believe we have "the answer", we are dead - if not in reality, certainly mentally and spiritually.
I also wanted to thank you for responding. I can agree that managing properties is worthy work, and any one who has ever owned a home knows how much work ownership can be that you don't have to do if you are renting. One might look at renting as outsourcing the problems of ownership.
I think the problem for me is this pyramid issue. The fact that people can climb the period and move from exploited to exploiter doesn't leave me with warm fuzzies about a system that works this way. It strikes me as morally wrong.
For some reason, I am thinking this is where the notion of Tzedakah is so important. If you are going to have an inherently unjust system, then you need to have a mechanism where there is a floor so that people aren't living in misery to support the wealthy lifestyles of a few.
Perhaps it is our real life Omelas, and the question is what is one to do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_From_Omelas
Posted by srjenkins at 08/02/2007 @ 10:32pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/02/2007 @ 11:24pm
If you are going to question MSM coverage, it makes sense you might have some facts to support your case. Malkin doesn't have facts, and those things that she thinks are facts are further distorted by her penchant for hyperbole.
I've heard of Jews for Jesus, but I never had a reason to learn more about them. I took a look at their website based on your suggestion. I can't say I have any strong feelings about it one way or another.
I don't define being Jewish as an ethnicity, but some people have and do. I am interested in the Jewish spiritual tradition as a way to inform my own faith - and perhaps Jews for Jesus has a similar interest. However, questions of Jewish identity, correctly categorizing religious practice, and proselytizing to convert people to my particular brand of religious belief don't particularly interest me.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/03/2007 @ 12:45am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/03/2007 @ 02:33am
We're talking a five fold increase in a few years. Enlistment bonuses used to be for critical MOS, rates or what have you. This is a different animal.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/03/2007 @ 02:47am
I don't believe I was offering a definition at all. I was asking questions around what it means to be employed and made only a few definite statements about it - none of which were a definition.
What I do find interesting is that you claim that somehow my definition is not standard. Leaving aside the fact that I didn't offer a definition, it is interesting that you make this claim and then not offer the "correct" definition or even state what the problem was in my definition. An oversight perhaps?
Let's use the the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Self-employed is defined as follows:
"Those persons who work for profit or fees in their own business, profession, trade, or farm."
By that definition, panhandlers are self-employed - as someone stated earlier in this thread.
I was asking questions about what it means to be employed. I'm familiar with the ideas and definitions: underemployed, unemployed, self-employed, so forth and so on.
I'm more interested in what is missing in these definitions. If a panhandler spends as much time panhandling as you spend as a pastor, are you not then both employed? Perhaps he has simply simplified his needs more than you and is in fact even more free? Or is there a social component to employment? Does it make a difference if the panhandling is accompanied by great musical performances? Or is it that you don't actually have to be employed at all? The panhandler who just sits there with a cup.
Most simply say panhandling isn't being employed at all. But by the BLS definition that isn't true. Most people also don't look at the other side of the equation - apparently, the value of being employed becomes less important the more investment income you can garner. I find that rather interesting.
Anyway, the moral value of work and the responsibilities that come with wealth is an interesting topic. I'd be interested in hearing your views on it.
http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#S
Posted by srjenkins at 08/03/2007 @ 04:14am
By that definition, panhandlers are self-employed - as someone stated earlier in this thread.
nonsense. panhandling is begging not working. get a grip, folks
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 09:47am
By the BLS definition, it is working. By your definition, is being a landlord working? Is making decisions about how to invest your trust fund working? Enlighten us.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/03/2007 @ 2:26pm
By the BLS definition, it is working. By your definition, is being a landlord working? Is making decisions about how to invest your trust fund working?
Actually, the BLS glossary doesn't define "work", therefore it can't be read to state that panhandling is working. I would argue that for it to be work in the sense of an economic transaction (which is what being employed essentially is), one has to provide a good or a service. A panhandlder does neither. Being a landlord and managing the property arguably does both. If you are making decisions regarding your own investments and you are living off the consequences of those, I would argue that you are self-employed (or at least closer than a panhandler is).
Posted by brunowe at 08/03/2007 @ 3:09pm
Here's the BLS definition of "Employed Persons" Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.
Panhandling isn't a business. Living off one's investments isn't likely to be one either.
Posted by brunowe at 08/03/2007 @ 3:11pm
SRJ: One might look at renting as outsourcing the problems of ownership.
Not "might"! My very best (defined as I never have to sweat receiving rent payments) tenant is a senior citizen who moved to Houston (from New Jersey) after retiring from the US Postal Service in 1999. My tenant ever since! Renting is total bliss for her!
SRJ: ....fact that people can climb the period and move from exploited to exploiter doesn't leave me with warm fuzzies about a system that works this way. It strikes me as morally wrong.
A system that allows social mobility is ideal, from my viewpoint. It provide incentives to a majority of people to climb the pyramid and if one falls along the way, can get right back up and try again. I'm not nearly philosophical as you--remember my math skills and engineering background--I take the world AS IS and observe that, for my time on this earth, nothing beats capitalism for the largest % of its citizen practitioners. It is, IMO, the least "morally wrong" for the most people in practice today!
SRJ: If you are going to have an inherently unjust system,...
As long as us humans are different, the world of mankind will always be "inherently unjust"! I think this also applies in The Animal Kingdom and perhaps, throughout the universe! Guess I'm just not cut out to be a philosopher!
Don't forget, when you attempt to make our world more "just" for the lesser-endowed or motivated, you are being UNjust to those of us who are born more blessed. Too bad, I wasn't born looking like Sean Connery! Sigh!
Posted by Happy at 08/03/2007 @ 3:25pm
...BLS definition of "Employed Persons"....worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family....
Posted by BRUNOWE 08/03/2007 @ 3:11pm
Rather interesting how arbitrary these gubberment definitions can be! I'm surprised that UNPAID 15-or-more-hours relatives can be an "Employed Person" but NOT if she/he only `worked' 14 hours and 59 minutes for no pay!
Light bulb moment! We can achieve 100% employment easily!!!!
Posted by Happy at 08/03/2007 @ 3:43pm
Hap, why don't you splain us why the stock market keeps tanking? hurts don' it?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 5:09pm
....why the stock market keeps tanking? hurts don' it?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/03/2007 @ 5:09pm
JR,
For someone who lives in NYC, you don't have in-depth understanding of your city's economic base!
The `market' never "keeps tanking" nor keeps booming! The astute investors, which I unabashedly am, know that! Do you recall that I was having trouble finding new stocks to buy even as I continued to sell and is now cash-heavy (hit a decade high of 32%)! In fact, I picked up 3 stocks today, all trading very close to 52-weeks low and all are small caps (<$1 Billion) which have been hit harder than the broad market!
Sure, my overall portfolio went down but that is part of the excitement to being an active investor! IF every hour, day, week, month and year is the same, you think we would even have the most vibrant financial market in the world?
Ever watch a game where one team never gets a chance for a comeback....blowout from the opening whistle? IF you pick good stocks, it's like watching a good team go through a season (or seasons) where it has some win streaks, lose streaks, some injuries, some team chemistry issues, la de da......but reaches deep into the playoffs and once in a while, you win the whole enchilada!
Posted by Happy at 08/03/2007 @ 5:43pm
Hap, right now it's tanking. the only pleasure I take in that is that your obnoxious hosannas will be temporarily diminished.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 6:19pm
...the only pleasure I take in that is that your obnoxious hosannas will be temporarily diminished.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/03/2007 @ 6:19pm
Ocassionally, your true self comes shining through....No posing necessary! The no-money libs, the vast majority, have just one agenda.....envy masquerading as class warfare!
But since even you realize that the stock markets' long-term trend is up, at least you know your "pleasure" is just temporary! Hahhahaha....
Me, on the other hand, I hope you sell gazillion whatevers & becomes the Kos of dance, art.......This is still America and your success is our collective success!
Posted by Happy at 08/03/2007 @ 7:20pm
envy? hardly. in my admittedly small pond, I am a somewhat big fish. my client base has stabilized, I'm at the top of my game artistically speaking. having reached the august age of 60, I hope to have perhaps ten active years left. after that, study, contemplation. most people hate their work, I don't. most people, take away their work, they wither and die. moi, I could care less. my interests are so wide ranging and deep, I will never be bored. admittedly, I could be more secure financially, but as a freelance I have never been secure, so I'm used to that.
I share this with you and everyone because I consider myself a counterweight to the crass materialists here, of which you are a glaring example. there is another way.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 7:46pm
Hap, I don't actually sell anything, I provide a service, though I do sell DVDs of the videos I make for my clients.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 8:08pm
to them.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 8:13pm
J,
All good and well, but you clearly have your nose in the air.
You do your own thing, your way and on your terms. Good for you.
Just get over yourself.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/03/2007 @ 9:44pm
Just get over yourself.
Posted by USAPRIDE 08/03/2007 @ 9:44pm | ignore this person
Nah, then I would be perfect, that's not good. the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 10:17pm