Iraq Demands $1 Billion And An Apology From U.S. For Damage To Baghdad

In an example of unparalleled hubris, Iraqi officials are demanding that the United States apologize and pay $1 billion for the damage done to the city. Officials are complaining that the blast walls installed by the U.S. to protect the public are ugly and that Humvees and vehicles have caused damage in patrolling the city and fighting insurgents.

The city released a statement saying “The U.S. forces changed this beautiful city to a camp in an ugly and destructive way, which reflected deliberate ignorance and carelessness about the simplest forms of public taste . . . Due to the huge damage, leading to a loss the Baghdad municipality cannot afford . . . we demand the American side apologize to Baghdad’s people and pay back these expenses.”

For those of us who opposed the war in Iraq, this is a particularly maddening moment. We continue to lose lives and billions in public funds as our states sell off parks, buildings, and cut critical programs. We have wasted billions of dollars in Iraq with little or no evidence of where money has gone.

In Afghanistan, we have a corrupt president who repeatedly states that he prefers the Taliban and views the United States as an enemy. Karzai also sought to tax U.S. contractors supporting his government and a bailout for his banks.

Yet, we continue to assume towering losses because our leaders are unwilling to take personal responsibility to pull us out of these countries. Rather than risk political backlash, President Obama and others allow our military personnel to die every day for countries that are increasingly openly hostile to us. This is becoming a truly Felliniesque farce.

Source: Reuters

Jonathan Turley

132 thoughts on “Iraq Demands $1 Billion And An Apology From U.S. For Damage To Baghdad”

  1. The factory price will help you save a lot of money.
    com plete manufactured factors put together by it are very costly and his mantainace cost is also
    eminent. Single day and individual sessions are also
    available for purchase.

  2. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 23, 2011 at 9:22 pm


    When you are ready, you will understand.

  3. And up is down, isn’t it, troll? The bottom line is still that you have not defended your postulate cogently because you can’t. Its very basis is circular logic that is and has been repeatedly dismantled.

  4. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 23, 2011 at 11:41 am

    Because you keep telling me yourself how invaluable I am to your work, sport!

    You keep on a lyin’ and I’ll just a keep on tearin’ it down.


    Methinks you be confused, perhaps hanging upside down by your feet.

    You are building my work up, not tearing it down.

    Perhaps you are missing the usual magnetite particles in your brain which give many fully-developed mammals an accurate sense of direction?

  5. Because you keep telling me yourself how invaluable I am to your work, sport!

    You keep on a lyin’ and I’ll just a keep on tearin’ it down.

  6. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 23, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Where do you get the notion that you are doing anything that has anything but trivial insignificance regarding the work I am doing?

    You are doing a great job of telling me about yourself, though.

  7. Frustrated by his inability to defend his indefensible assertions without resorting to circular logic, lies, distorted definitions, evasions and false equivalences, the propaganda troll will often flail about wildly. If they cannot paint the truth as a lie, they will often go after the speaker of truth. Here you see the propagandist trying to paint the truth sayer as “insane” combined with assertions that he is the gatekeeper of the “true truth” despite having no evidence or valid logic to back his false assertions. We were hoping to get the next escalation of propaganda troll behavior on film – when the troll accuses the truth sayer of eating babies – but alas, that slacker Jim left the spare video tape in the truck. As you can plainly see, the propaganda troll is a fearsome looking beast. However, with the proper tool set of facts and logic, this pernicious spreader of Big Lies can be easily contained.

    Join us next week on “Wild Kingdom” when Jim will wrestle an alligator.

  8. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 23, 2011 at 12:09 am

    Stop you? Maybe not, but I will continue to point out that you’re lying about what causes adversity and that your postulate is an inducement to tyranny and anarchy. I guess you are oblivious to what the word “relentless” means too.


    It is slowly dawning on me that my understanding of the definition of “insanity” in terms of an intelligible biophysical understanding is slowly leading me to ponder the possibility that, in terms of “insanity” as defined in my Black’s Ninth, on page 865, there can ever be a better interpretation of your comments other than your being, in the legal sense, insane.

    I wrote and defended a doctoral dissertation, “Mental Health and Mental Illness: Cause, Purpose, Cure, and Prevention; A Bioengineering Perspective” — University of Illinois at Chicago, 1998. That I wrote and defended that dissertation is an objective, readily verified FACT!

    What have you ever done which you can comparably demonstrate which even remotely qualifies you to understand what lying is as a human brain activity?

    I find your theories espoused to be as profoundly anti-tyrannical as I find your theories in use to be purely tyrannical.

    Were you brought to Wisconsin (Daubert was not the law in Wisconsin the last time I checked), I would readily be able to witness to your being apparently functionally insane regarding your espoused beliefs about the Adversarial Principle and the practicable application of the Adversarial Principle to the possibility of a viable form of the rule of law.

    BiL, you want to put your version of reality to the test against the version of reality I employ as a registered professional engineer, and I can guarantee you that your version will succumb to the objective reality of direct observation.

    All you do is hide behind a pseudonym, apparently pretending that your real identity is not carried by the arrows of hate you are shooting. I observe, know, and understand better.

    What more utterly contemptible dishonesty can there ever be than to ambush from hiding someone who only works toward making human society less hurtful and damaging to its members?

  9. Stop you? Maybe not, but I will continue to point out that you’re lying about what causes adversity and that your postulate is an inducement to tyranny and anarchy. I guess you are oblivious to what the word “relentless” means too.

  10. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 22, 2011 at 11:53 pm

    I guess that you are oblivious to the fact that I have encountered people who believe much as it appears to me you believe throughout almost the whole of my life.

    It was the third or so of my kindergarten class who were, methinks, on the broad path you have chosen whose abuse led me to realize the possibility of my escaping from your attempts to torture and torment me with your coercive adversity, yet I made the decision on the way home on the third day of kindergarten that no one with your sort of beliefs would ever silence me in any way whatsoever.

    You shall not stop me from being truthful and telling about that which I find I know and understand of truth and truthfulness.

  11. Again, I could give a damn what you think of me, troll boy.

    The reason you cannot defend your “work” is that it is fundamentally illogical, not a rebuttal to proper logic.

    Logic is logic and you are not simply playing by the rules.

    This comes as no surprise considering your general disparagement of any rules but especially those that disagree with your poor reasoning and lack of evidence.

    You make an assertion. When that assertion is challenged, as it will be in both science and law, either you can back it up with logic and evidence countering the challenge or you cannot. If you had any logic to back your assertion, or any evidence, you’d give them as defense of your postulate just as I gave my evidence and logic for why your assertion is simply antisocial, anti-Constitutional, anti-legalism and anti-civilization nonsense. Since you have not defended your “work”, it is reasonable to infer that you cannot defend your “work” – which as a matter of logical proofs, you cannot.

    Where you are heading is to the dust bin of bad ideas and failed propaganda, sport.

    Although I’m sure you’ll deny that too.

  12. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 22, 2011 at 11:22 pm

    The bottom line is you cannot logically defend your “work”.

    I cannot “defend my work” within what I find to be your version of logic for the simple reason that the biophysics-grounded logic I use is the rebuttal of your version of logic.

    I can quite nicely theatrically role-play according to your version of logic, to such extent as I can make any sense of it, yet the logic I know, understand, and use is a formal system of logic which excludes the Adversarial Principle as being anything other than illogical and abusive in dastardly ways when put into practice.

    My view is of the form that the Adversarial Principle is a form of error upon which the logic I find you promote appears to me to be based, in such a way as to make deceptive dishonesty so addictive as to capture even some very high measured IQ people.

    Within the biophysics-based system of formal logic which I use, the Adversarial Principle, when used in the Adversarial System generates the difficulties it subsequently claims to address, thereby creating its own deceptive need.

    Say so is not be so. A new paradigm cannot be the paradigm it replaces or obsoletes else it be not a new paradigm.

    BiL, you remind me terribly of Mr. Horace Freiman and his enticing one of my classmates to molest me in a truly horrid way.

    What you are accomplishing with your comments is to ever more strongly encourage me to take my model of child abuse into the maximal public forum attention I can design and develop.

    There have been many people who have, for whatever reasons, treated me hatefully. BiL, you are in the process of surpassing every murderer I have ever known in terms of passive-aggressive hatred as I experience such hatred.

    Methinks you are brilliantly winning the race to the bottom.

    I am heading the other way.

Comments are closed.