ずくなしの冷や水

2017年05月12日

米国はサダムフセインを倒すためにイラクに行った 民主主義をもたらすためではない

RT2017/5/12
‘We went to Iraq to overthrow Saddam, not bring democracy’ – ex-State Secretary Condoleezza Rice

The primary US objective during the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not bringing democracy to the Middle Eastern country, but to oust Saddam Hussein, touted as “a threat to the region,” says a secretary of state under President George W. Bush.

“We didn't go to Iraq to bring democracy to Iraq,” Condoleezza Rice told a meeting at the Brookings Institution on Thursday, stressing that the aim was simply to eliminate a security challenge.

“We went to Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who we thought was reconstituting weapons of mass destruction, and who we knew had been a threat in the region. It was a security problem.”

Bringing democracy to Afghanistan by removing the radical Taliban wasn’t a US goal either.

“We overthrew them [Taliban] because they were harboring Al-Qaeda in a safe haven after 9/11,” Rice said.

“Once we had done that, it was a separate decision as to whether or not to try to advocate for a post-Saddam or a post-Taliban Iraq or Afghanistan that would be democratic, or that it would be given a chance for democracy. And we actually debated whether that ought to be the case. But we felt, particularly in the Middle East, we had done enough of support authoritarians because they are stable, and then watch them ultimately not be stable…”

Rice, who served as national security adviser to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005, denied that the United States was ready to use its military power to impose democracy on Iraq in 2003 or on Afghanistan in 2001.

“I would never have said to President Bush: ‘Use military force to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan,’” she added.

It’s not the first time Rice has owned up that Washington’s top priority in Iraq was to eliminate a Saddam, labeled as “cancer in the Middle East.”

“We didn’t go to Iraq to bring democracy to the Iraqis,” Rice told ABC News in 2011, saying Saddam Hussein was a threat that “needed to be dealt with.”

In 2003, Bush authorized a US-led invasion of Iraq, claiming that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and was working with terrorists who had attacked the US in September 2001.

Neither of those claims turned out to be true. In his recently-published book, ‘Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein’, former CIA officer John Nixon, who interrogated Hussein in 2003, argued that Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) could not have arisen under his rule. “It is improbable that a group like ISIS would have been able to enjoy the kind of success under his [Hussein’s] repressive regime that they have had under the Shia-led Baghdad government,” Nixon said.

He noted that “Saddam felt that Islamist extremist groups in Iraq posed the biggest threat to his rule” and did his best to eradicate any such threats.

“In hindsight, the thought of having an ageing and disengaged Saddam in power seems almost comforting in comparison with the wasted effort of our brave men and women in uniform and the rise of Islamic State, not to mention the £2.5 trillion [US$3.2 trillion] spent to build a new Iraq,”Nixon wrote.

The recently-published Chilcot report, by eminent Britons on their country’s involvement in the 2003 Iraq War, supported Nixon’s assumption on IS. The documents show that by 2006 – three years into the occupation – UK intelligence chiefs were increasingly concerned about the rise of Sunni jihadist resistance.

Those radicals and parts of the disbanded Iraqi military later joined radical jihadist groups, including IS, the report said.

By 2013, Al-Qaeda in Iraq – established only after the US invasion and the insurgency against the occupiers – had been transformed into Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and exploited the discontent of Iraq’s Sunni Muslims under the Shia-dominated Al-Maliki government to seize much of the north and east of the country.

In June 2014, IS was able to take the city of Mosul after some 30,000 Iraqi troops trained and equipped by the US simply fled the battlefield, leaving much of their weapons and gear behind. Iraqi operation aided by the US-led coalition is now engaged in an operation to liberate the city.

Some 5,000 US troops have returned to Iraq since, to “advise and assist” the reconstituted Iraqi military in its struggle against IS.
posted by ZUKUNASHI at 22:21| Comment(1) | 国際・政治

千葉市の人口動態 さらに深刻化

出生数、2010/1以降で最低を記録。出生数がエアポケットに入ったのは確実、後は死亡数がいつテイクオフするかです。


12ヶ月移動平均で出生数はこの6年間で1ヶ月当り683人から576人へ107人、15.7%の減、死亡数は585人から705人へ120人、20.5%の増となっています。



出生死亡比率は、2017年になって特に低調推移です。


このような事態の原因を管理人なりに探りましたがこれだという原因がつかめないままです。











posted by ZUKUNASHI at 11:56| Comment(2) | 福島原発事故

敵は弱いところを狙い撃ちしてくる 次は老人だ

2017/4の人口動態速報値では、出生数が福島第一原発事故後の最低値を記録する自治体が続出している。

新生児については、どうも敵の手が回ったらしい。残念だが。

次に敵が狙うのはどこか。高齢層、特に75〜79歳後期高齢者の入り口の階層になるだろう。

この階層は人数も多く、かつ死亡率が急に上がる。次のグレーの棒は2015/10/1時点の全国男女計の年齢階層別人口、単位千人。

国勢調査からすでに1年半経過したから、5歳刻みの階層の3割は一つ上の階層に上がり、一つ前の階層からその3割が移行してくるとの想定で計算したのが小豆色の棒だ。現在の75〜79歳を黄色で、5年後に75〜79歳階層になるはずの一つ下の階層をピンクで、そのまた一つ下の階層を緑に塗った。この先10年間は75〜79歳階層の人数は増え続ける。

次はこの先1年間の75歳以上階層の死亡数見込みと2017/2以前1年間の全年齢死亡数を示す。


上の二つの死亡数の比を見たのが次のグラフだ。例えば大阪府は「この先1年間の75歳以上階層の死亡数見込みと2017/2以前1年間の全年齢死亡数」の比が0.65前後と低く、75歳未満の死亡数も他県よりも相対的に多くなると見込まれる。

山形、富山は、75歳以上階層の死亡数の割合が高くなると見込まれ、年寄りがバタバタいくということにならないことを祈りたい。富山は人口動態が悪化している。山形など東北は福島第一原発事故の影響がある。

埼玉、神奈川は、年寄りも死ぬし、若い人もそれなりに死ぬという形になる可能性もある。特に、60歳以上74歳前後までは特に注意が必要だろう。この階層辺りから死亡率が上がり始める。

前の記事で見たが、大都市部の高齢者は身体的には潜在的にダメージを受けているらしい。そこに被曝が加わるとしたら、働き終わって日々ゆったりと過ごしたいと思い始めたその矢先に逝ってしまうことのないようにしたいものだ。
posted by ZUKUNASHI at 01:35| Comment(0) | 福島原発事故