• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Angelina Jolie

Cal

Well-known member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022702217_pf.html


By Angelina Jolie
Thursday, February 28, 2008; 1:15 PM


The request is familiar to American ears: "Bring them home."

But in Iraq, where I've just met with American and Iraqi leaders, the phrase carries a different meaning. It does not refer to the departure of U.S. troops, but to the return of the millions of innocent Iraqis who have been driven out of their homes and, in many cases, out of the country.

In the six months since my previous visit to Iraq with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this humanitarian crisis has not improved. However, during the last week, the United States, UNHCR and the Iraqi government have begun to work together in new and important ways.

We still don't know exactly how many Iraqis have fled their homes, where they've all gone, or how they're managing to survive. Here is what we do know: More than 2 million people are refugees inside their own country -- without homes, jobs and, to a terrible degree, without medicine, food or clean water. Ethnic cleansing and other acts of unspeakable violence have driven them into a vast and very dangerous no-man's land. Many of the survivors huddle in mosques, in abandoned buildings with no electricity, in tents or in one-room huts made of straw and mud. Fifty-eight percent of these internally displaced people are younger than 12 years old.

An additional 2.5 million Iraqis have sought refuge outside Iraq, mainly in Syria and Jordan. But those host countries have reached their limits. Overwhelmed by the refugees they already have, these countries have essentially closed their borders until the international community provides support.

I'm not a security expert, but it doesn't take one to see that Syria and Jordan are carrying an unsustainable burden. They have been excellent hosts, but we can't expect them to care for millions of poor Iraqis indefinitely and without assistance from the U.S. or others. One-sixth of Jordan's population today is Iraqi refugees. The large burden is already causing tension internally.

The Iraqi families I've met on my trips to the region are proud and resilient. They don't want anything from us other than the chance to return to their homes -- or, where those homes have been bombed to the ground or occupied by squatters, to build new ones and get back to their lives. One thing is certain: It will be quite a while before Iraq is ready to absorb more than 4 million refugees and displaced people. But it is not too early to start working on solutions. And last week, there were signs of progress.

In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR's need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. General Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis "to the maximum extent possible" -- which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made.

UNHCR is certainly committed to that. Last week while in Iraq, High Commissioner António Guterres pledged to increase UNHCR's presence there and to work closely with the Iraqi government, both in assessing the conditions required for return and in providing humanitarian relief.

During my trip I also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has announced the creation of a new committee to oversee issues related to internally displaced people, and a pledge of $40 million to support the effort.

My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.

Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money -- but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

Angelina Jolie, an actor, is a UNHCR goodwill ambassador.
 

Steve

Well-known member
As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

If the US pulled the troops out the stability would collapse..

If we maintain the troops levels, the Iraqis forces will grow and be able to maintain that stability..

With that stability refugees.. or those who wanted no part in the fighting can go home.. and assist in helping maintain the stability..

wasn't that the same rational for staying in Germany... Japan ,, Italy..
 

olderroper

Well-known member
Cal said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022702217_pf.html


By Angelina Jolie
Thursday, February 28, 2008; 1:15 PM


The request is familiar to American ears: "Bring them home."

But in Iraq, where I've just met with American and Iraqi leaders, the phrase carries a different meaning. It does not refer to the departure of U.S. troops, but to the return of the millions of innocent Iraqis who have been driven out of their homes and, in many cases, out of the country.

In the six months since my previous visit to Iraq with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this humanitarian crisis has not improved. However, during the last week, the United States, UNHCR and the Iraqi government have begun to work together in new and important ways.

We still don't know exactly how many Iraqis have fled their homes, where they've all gone, or how they're managing to survive. Here is what we do know: More than 2 million people are refugees inside their own country -- without homes, jobs and, to a terrible degree, without medicine, food or clean water. Ethnic cleansing and other acts of unspeakable violence have driven them into a vast and very dangerous no-man's land. Many of the survivors huddle in mosques, in abandoned buildings with no electricity, in tents or in one-room huts made of straw and mud. Fifty-eight percent of these internally displaced people are younger than 12 years old.

An additional 2.5 million Iraqis have sought refuge outside Iraq, mainly in Syria and Jordan. But those host countries have reached their limits. Overwhelmed by the refugees they already have, these countries have essentially closed their borders until the international community provides support.

I'm not a security expert, but it doesn't take one to see that Syria and Jordan are carrying an unsustainable burden. They have been excellent hosts, but we can't expect them to care for millions of poor Iraqis indefinitely and without assistance from the U.S. or others. One-sixth of Jordan's population today is Iraqi refugees. The large burden is already causing tension internally.

The Iraqi families I've met on my trips to the region are proud and resilient. They don't want anything from us other than the chance to return to their homes -- or, where those homes have been bombed to the ground or occupied by squatters, to build new ones and get back to their lives. One thing is certain: It will be quite a while before Iraq is ready to absorb more than 4 million refugees and displaced people. But it is not too early to start working on solutions. And last week, there were signs of progress.

In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR's need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. General Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis "to the maximum extent possible" -- which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made.

UNHCR is certainly committed to that. Last week while in Iraq, High Commissioner António Guterres pledged to increase UNHCR's presence there and to work closely with the Iraqi government, both in assessing the conditions required for return and in providing humanitarian relief.

During my trip I also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has announced the creation of a new committee to oversee issues related to internally displaced people, and a pledge of $40 million to support the effort.

My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.

Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money -- but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

Angelina Jolie, an actor, is a UNHCR goodwill ambassador.
I wonder who helped her write that touching tale, almost sounded like pres Buush as I was reading along.
You can see I don't give much credibility to news services. Looks to me like this was designed to prey on our emotions.
Our soldiers want to stay there...right...wonder how many she talked to?
How many of them want to get home to their own families and start rebuilding their own lives. ...No that wouldn't have fit with her tale.
 

Steve

Well-known member
OlderRoper
How many of them want to get home to their own families and start rebuilding their own lives.


I am sure that every soldier stationed in Iraq wants to go home and be with their families..

but soldiers also understand their duty and service requires that they stay and fight..

and if they leave and come back as Obama suggests they will have to re-take every town and village they already have..
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Steve said:
OlderRoper
How many of them want to get home to their own families and start rebuilding their own lives.


I am sure that every soldier stationed in Iraq wants to go home and be with their families..

but soldiers also understand their duty and service requires that they stay and fight..

and if they leave and come back as Obama suggests they will have to re-take every town and village they already have..

I have a couple of friends over there right now and one in fact offered to go. He's been over there multiple times. I was able to see him before he was deployed and it gave me a deeper understanding of the duty a soldier feels. He believes in the cause.

The media vastly does not portray situations over there correctly. They play on the American publics idea of families, mothers, and children. When in fact these are the people who will sacrifice their own as sucide bombers. Children have to be regarded as a possible threat because this society sees no harm in a child dieing as long as they take an American or two with them. They are not the mothers and children that I invisioned in my mind.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Sadam is dead.WMD's are not there and people are dieng on both sides....What is the fight about now? All the reasons for going have been accomplished,what more is there to die for??????
 

olderroper

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Sadam is dead.WMD's are not there and people are dieng on both sides....What is the fight about now? All the reasons for going have been accomplished,what more is there to die for??????

Well somebodys got to protect all the American Big business Interests and oil companies that have moved in over there. Even Cheeneys water company.
:roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
NoNothing
Sadam is dead.WMD's are not there and people are dieng on both sides....What is the fight about now? All the reasons for going have been accomplished,what more is there to die for??????

all except one.. A stable peaceful democratic Iraq..
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Steve said:
all except one.. A stable peaceful democratic Iraq..
How do you propose to accomplish that in a land where they have been at war with each other for over 5,000 years? since the Babylonian empire the ONLY peace and stability in this area has been provided by dictators. There has NEVER been democracy here. They don't understand it. They don't want it. Why force them to live that way?
 

Steve

Well-known member
gp
They don't want it.

who are you listening to the insurgents.. terrorists..

or the millions who voted?

Many nation (even china) are moving towards democracy..

and we have seen North Korea.. Japan. change..


or are you saying? "Muslims so stupid that they don't understand the simple democratic government? "
 

Mike

Well-known member
Did you not see those people that had dipped their fingers in the ink to show that they had voted? :roll:

And from the news reports I read, the voter turnout was paramount to U.S. voter turnout percentages.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is a worldwide right and privilege, one that I'm proud to perpetuate.

Give them the choice, them let them determine their own fate.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Mike said:
Did you not see those people that had dipped their fingers in the ink to show that they had voted? :roll:
With all the enthusiasm of any other staged event. :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
Mike said:
.........let them determine their own fate.
People usually have the government they chose. When they chose to change the government, it si called revolution and civil war. We should not be killing our kids in someone else's civil war.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Mike said:
We should not be killing our kids in someone else's civil war.

Does Kosovo, Serbia, or Bosnia ring a bell? :roll:
As of now, we are 13 kids short of having 4,000 kids killed in Iraq. Kosovo, Serbia, and Bosnia combined don't come close to that number. But FWIW, we should also pull out of there.
 
Top