THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Other than the people who we put in charge over there, most Iraqis don't want us there anymore. They want to deal with their problems themselves. We should not stay there if we are not welcomed by the people we say we are protecting.

I am just saying that I don't think the Bush administration has it in them to straighten this mess out because they don't know how to talk to other people in other countries without pissing them off. Even the countries that are in there with us are leaving. They probably realize how hopeless it is. We just don't have enough troops to do what you are suggesting even if Bush could managed it right. With Kerry there was a chance, a small one, but I don't think there is a chance with President Bush.

The only reason that I thought there was a chance with Kerry is because he don't talk to other leaders of other countries with a snotty attitude and he might of have been able to sway those countries that have more money and troops than the ones that are presently helping us to help us straighten this mess out.

I could be wrong and I hope I am.

Clearly we need to stay and help the Iraqis until such time as they can handle the insurgency on their own.

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Explosives were looted from the Al-Qaqaa ammunitions site in Iraq while outnumbered U.S. soldiers assigned to guard the materials watched helplessly, soldiers told the Los Angeles Times.

About a dozen U.S. troops were guarding the sprawling facility in the weeks after the April 2003 fall of Baghdad when Iraqi looters raided the site, the newspaper quoted a group of unidentified soldiers as saying.

U.S. Army reservists and National Guardsmen witnessed the looting and some soldiers sent messages to commanders in Baghdad requesting help, but received no reply, they said.

"It was complete chaos. It was looting like L.A. during the Rodney King riots," one officer said.

The eyewitness accounts reported by the Times are the first provided by U.S. soldiers and bolster claims that the U.S. military had failed to safeguard the powerful explosives, the newspaper said.

revel wrote:

Other than the people who we put in charge over there, most Iraqis don't want us there anymore. They want to deal with their problems themselves. We should not stay there if we are not welcomed by the people we say we are protecting.

I am just saying that I don't think the Bush administration has it in them to straighten this mess out because they don't know how to talk to other people in other countries without pissing them off. Even the countries that are in there with us are leaving. They probably realize how hopeless it is. We just don't have enough troops to do what you are suggesting even if Bush could managed it right. With Kerry there was a chance, a small one, but I don't think there is a chance with President Bush.

The only reason that I thought there was a chance with Kerry is because he don't talk to other leaders of other countries with a snotty attitude and he might of have been able to sway those countries that have more money and troops than the ones that are presently helping us to help us straighten this mess out.

I could be wrong and I hope I am.

Why do you think "most Iraqis don't want us there anymore," and want to deal with the insurgency by themselves? I find that hard to believe. Did Zogby take a poll?

But if your point is the US should leave, taking its troops with us, why do you comment on your perception of Kerry's superior bargaining abilities with regard to getting other countries to commit troops to the region?

Clearly we need to stay and help the Iraqis until such time as they can handle the insurgency on their own.

revel wrote:

Other than the people who we put in charge over there, most Iraqis don't want us there anymore. They want to deal with their problems themselves. We should not stay there if we are not welcomed by the people we say we are protecting.

I am just saying that I don't think the Bush administration has it in them to straighten this mess out because they don't know how to talk to other people in other countries without pissing them off. Even the countries that are in there with us are leaving. They probably realize how hopeless it is. We just don't have enough troops to do what you are suggesting even if Bush could managed it right. With Kerry there was a chance, a small one, but I don't think there is a chance with President Bush.

The only reason that I thought there was a chance with Kerry is because he don't talk to other leaders of other countries with a snotty attitude and he might of have been able to sway those countries that have more money and troops than the ones that are presently helping us to help us straighten this mess out.

I could be wrong and I hope I am.

Why do you think "most Iraqis don't want us there anymore," and want to deal with the insurgency by themselves? I find that hard to believe. Did Zogby take a poll?

But if your point is the US should leave, taking its troops with us, why do you comment on your perception of Kerry's superior bargaining abilities with regard to getting other countries to commit troops to the region?

Clearly we need to stay and help the Iraqis until such time as they can handle the insurgency on their own.

I would expect nothing less that absolute pessimism from you, Cyclo. Interesting you have allowed for the slight possibility that we might "win."

The insurgency is made up of several groups, including Saddam loyalists, Iraqui nationals who disagree with the invasion, and al Qaeda and other terrorists that have arrived to fight the "infidel." That doesn't make it the "majority" of Iraqi people.

It doesn't have to be the majority of the people. As long as they hold support from 10-20% of the population they will have all the guns, ammo, and shelter they need to continue to attack our troops and Iraqi national guard troops.

There are two ways to ending the support from the people:

1. Make it too painful to support the insurgents,

or

2. Convince them not to support the insurgents.

My opinion is that we will never win by doing #1 - killing Iraqis only bolsters the numbers of insurgents.

Therefore, we must focus on #2 - winning the Iraqi people over to our side. We haven't been doing much of this.

Remember, their equivalent of the massive group of people who helped win the election here for Bush is just as active in Iraq, telling the population that we sure aren't there for their own good. We need to find a non-violent way to deflect or defeat this method.

I don't think we should pull out; but when it comes to the possibility of winning through military force, I don't see that happening either, and therefore, am pessimistic about the situation unless things are changed.

The best way to do what Cycloptichorn is suggesting is to get them working on their own infrastructure. Pay them to fix their own neighborhoods. When the terrorists blow them up, they will be blowing up Iraqi interests instead of US interests. Iraqi's are a proud people and I do not think they would idly sit by and watch their own work be decimated.

There is no reason for there to be even one unemployed Irai right now.

The best way to do what Cycloptichorn is suggesting is to get them working on their own infrastructure. Pay them to fix their own neighborhoods. When the terrorists blow them up, they will be blowing up Iraqi interests instead of US interests. Iraqi's are a proud people and I do not think they would idly sit by and watch their own work be decimated.

There is no reason for there to be even one unemployed Irai right now.

What effect does the insurgency killing Iraqis have upon the Iraqi people, in your opinion?

The insurgency is a committed opponent. The answer is not to leave. Although that would certainly be the expected Clintonian era response they might have expected from the US. I suspect the insurgents really felt this election was going to go differently.

The best way to do what Cycloptichorn is suggesting is to get them working on their own infrastructure. Pay them to fix their own neighborhoods. When the terrorists blow them up, they will be blowing up Iraqi interests instead of US interests. Iraqi's are a proud people and I do not think they would idly sit by and watch their own work be decimated.

There is no reason for there to be even one unemployed Irai right now.

Ticomaya wrote

Quote:

The insurgency is a committed opponent. The answer is not to leave. Although that would certainly be the expected Clintonian era response they might have expected from the US. I suspect the insurgents really felt this election was going to go differently.

There you go again Clinton. When all else fails the right trots out the name of Clinton. Clinton would not have been stupid enough to invade based on a lie. And if evidence sufficient to invade were present he would not have allowed our troops to go in undermanned and ill equipped. That said Bush and his brain drain are responsible for quicksand we find ourselves mired in. I wonder how many American service men will have to die or be wounded and how much treasure will have to be expended to extricate ourselves from Bush's fiasco in Iraq. Can we leave now of course not? As has been said over and over again it's like pottery if you break it you own it. His father was smart enough to understand what would happen if we went all the way to Baghdad during the gulf war but junior unfortunately was not. And now we are realizing the results of his stupidity.