ican't, You should tell that to Bush; he's the one insisting on staying in Iraq until we are successful.
I think I know what Bush would say. He would merely state the obvious: far more Iraqi civilians (not to mention American civiians) will die if we leave it to the Sunnis than if we stay. But do any of Bush's critics care about that? If not, why does Bush care about that?
We only care that more Americans will get killed, and our treasury spent on a unknown goal in Iraq while we kill more innocent Iraqis.
The chicken-hawks of this administration doesn't understand anything about foreign policy or wars.
"Bring them on!" he said.
I think we have to figure out someway to convince Bush to pull out before he has actually "stayed the course."
The problem is aggrevated by the fact (not recognized by his critics) that Bush's conscience won't let him abandon Iraqi civilians to sure mass murder, if the USA were to leave Iraq before the Iraqis themselves can defend themselves. I think Bush also realizes that if he did order a pull out before "staying the course", his critics would villify him far more for that unconscionable act, than they do now for his insistance on "staying the course."
So to convince Bush to pull out despite these factors we have to somehow convince him that fewer Iraqi civilians will die if the USA pulls out than if the USA "stays the course." I think the way to do that is to convince the Bush critics' de facto allies in Iraq to cease their murder of civilians long enough to convince Bush that he has "stayed the course." Bush's critics can get the ball rolling so to speak by starting now to laud him for successfully "staying the course." Keep up that lauding of Bush until he does order a pull out. Then when the USA has left, the Bush critics' de facto allies in Iraq can resume their murder of civilians to their hearts' content, and Bush's critics here at home can then justifiably resume villifying him, but with even greater intensity and than before.
What do you think? Will it work? Is it worth a try?
According to most recent polls taken of Iraqis, they want the US military to leave. At some point, Iraqis will have to battle the insurgents on their own. They must learn to secure their own country without outside help; otherwise our occupation remains indefinitely into the future. There will be ongoing civil wars in Iraq; but they've been fighting for centuries - not just since 2003.
That our occupation exacerbated insurgency problems, 150,000 US troops will never be successful. The strategy used by this administration has been wrong from the first bombs dropped in March 2003.
"Shock and awe" will never reconcile with Bush's concern for the Iraqis.
Unfortunately, Cicerone Imposter gives no cite for his claims.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228
quote:
"Dec. 12,2005--An ABC News Poll in Iraq, conducted with Time Magazine and other media partners, includes some remarkable results: DESPITE THE DAILY VIOLENCE THERE, MOST LIVING CONDITIONS ARE RATED POSITIVELY, SEVEN IN TEN IRAQIS SAY THEIR OWN LIVES ARE GOING WELL,AND NEARLY TWO THIRDS EXPECT THINGS TO IMPROVE IN THE YEAR AHEAD..."
"Preference for a democratic political structure has advance, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic State has lost ground, to 14 percent>"
"Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U. S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week's election takes office; that adds up to 45 Percent. Roughly the other half SAYS THAT COALITION FORCES SHOULD REMAIN UNTIL SECURITY IS RESTORED"
"This survey was sponsored by ABC News with partners Time, the BBC, the Japanese network NHK and the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, with field work by Oxford Research International, It consists of in-person interviews with a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis from early October through mid- November(of 2005)"
Don't have to. Read this from the BBC.
Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 23/10/2005)
Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.
The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.
Andrew Robathan: Government policy 'disastrous'
It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.
The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country.
The results come as it was disclosed yesterday that Lt Col Nick Henderson, the commanding officer of the Coldstream Guards in Basra, in charge of security for the region, has resigned from the Army. He recently voiced concerns over a lack of armoured vehicles for his men, another of whom was killed in a bomb attack in Basra last week.
The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq".
Andrew Robathan, a former member of the SAS and the Tory shadow defence minister, said last night that the poll clearly showed a complete failure of Government policy.
He said: "This clearly states that the Government's hearts-and-minds policy has been disastrous. The coalition is now part of the problem and not the solution.
"I am not advocating a pull-out but if British soldiers are putting their lives on the line for a cause which is not supported by the Iraqi people then we have to ask the question, 'what are we doing there?' "
The Sunday Telegraph disclosed last month that a plan for an early withdrawal of British troops had been shelved because of the failing security situation, sparking claims that Iraq was rapidly becoming "Britain's own Vietnam".
The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:
Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.
The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it.
Under the heading "Justification for Violent Attacks", the new poll shows that 65 per cent of people in Maysan province - one of the four provinces under British control - believe that attacks against coalition forces are justified.
The report states that for Iraq as a whole, 45 per cent of people feel attacks are justified. In Basra, the proportion is reduced to 25 per cent.
The report profiles those likely to carry out attacks against British and American troops as being "less than 26 years of age, more likely to want a job, more likely to have been looking for work in the last four weeks and less likely to have enough money even for their basic needs".
Immediately after the war the coalition embarked on a campaign of reconstruction in which it hoped to improve the electricity supply and the quality of drinking water.
That appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed.
But Iraq's President Jalal Talabani pleaded last night for British troops to stay. "There would be chaos and perhaps civil war," he said. "We are now fighting a world war launched by terrorists against civilisation, against democracy, against progress, against all the values of humanity.
"If British troops withdrew, the terrorists would say, 'Look, we have imposed our will on the most accomplished armed forces in the world and terror is the way to oblige the Europeans to surrender to us'."
John Reid, the Defence Secretary will announce next week that 3,100 troops are to deploy to Afghanistan next April as a part of the expansion of the International Sec-urity and Assistance Force. Their job will be to hunt down the Taliban and to take part in anti-narcotics operations.
20 October 2005: Roadside bomb kills British soldier
8 October 2005: Rise of militias leaves Basra in the balance
30 September 2005: Rise of militias leaves Basra in the balance
So much reverse progress in Iraq, when will Bush and Blair return our soldiers home to be safe from angry Iraqis?
I am very sorry, Cicerone Imposter but the survey you cite was done before the survey I cited and is therefore outdated. More cogently, the survey I cite was supervised by a variety of respected news sources from various countries. Yours is from the Guardian--known around the world as far left wing. Good try but insufficient.
As I posted:
"This survey was sponsored by ABC News with partners Time, the BBC, the Japanese network NHK and the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, with field work by Oxford Research International, It consists of in-person interviews with a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis from early October through mid- November(of 2005)"
I am very sorry, Cicerone Imposter but the survey you cite was done before the survey I cited and is therefore outdated. More cogently, the survey I cite was supervised by a variety of respected news sources from various countries. Yours is from the Sunday Telegraph--not known for its impartiality. Good try but insufficient.
As I posted:
"This survey was sponsored by ABC News with partners Time, the BBC, the Japanese network NHK and the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, with field work by Oxford Research International, It consists of in-person interviews with a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis from early October through mid- November(of 2005)"
Here's another country to invade, quick
Secret services say Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear missile
Document seen by Guardian details web of front companies and middlemen
Ian Cobain and Ian Traynor
Wednesday January 4, 2006
The Guardian
The Iranian government has been successfully scouring Europe for the sophisticated equipment needed to develop a nuclear bomb, according to the latest western intelligence assessment of the country's weapons programmes.
Scientists in Tehran are also shopping for parts for a ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe, with "import requests and acquisitions ... registered almost daily", the report seen by the Guardian concludes.
The warning came as Iran raised the stakes in its dispute with the United States and the European Union yesterday by notifying the International Atomic Energy Authority that it intended to resume nuclear fuel research next week. Tehran has refused to rule out a return to attempts at uranium enrichment, the key to the development of a nuclear weapon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1677542,00.html
I have not read of any plans of countries to invade Iran. Do you know of any, McTag? I have, however, read of speculation that the Israelis may replicate their destruction of the Iraqi nuclear facilities.
That's just it, Mortkat, we are not talking about invading Iran. It seems to me that all a country has to do is actually get nuclear weapons (or well on their way to having them) and they are safe from us.
What ? ! ? ! ?
The Iraqis want to exercise their sovereign power to put their own boy in charge? They want someone in command who is loyal to their government, and not ours? They don't want a Sunni veteran of the Ba'atist regime?
Oh the gall, the unmitigated arrogance of those people. Why, next thing you know, they'll want to make all their own decisions. What is the world coming to? How are we to establish democracy in the middle east if these people expect to make up their own minds about everything?
I know many here opposed the invasion of Iraq from a moral point of view right from the outset. But I have to confess I didn't. That is to say it was clear to me from September 2002 that the Americans were going to invade, and despite Mr Blair's disingenuous phrases "war is not inevitable, and no decisions have been taken" it was plain as a pike staff that Saddam was going to be regime changed and that Britain was going to help. Therefore, hoping against hope that the UN might somehow put the kybosh on the whole thing at the last moment, I resigned myself to the fact that it was going to happen, and there was nothing I could do to stop it. So the next least worse option was a quick campaign and the rapid establishment of a New Iraq, muslim of course but pro western, neither a theocracy nor military dictatorship but a fledgling democracy. And lets be honest, if the fancy packaging on the outside of the box bore any resemblance to the contents a lot of us would feel a lot happier. In fact Bush and Blair would be hailed as heros, removing the revolting Ba'athists and replacing them with a democratic regime much more to the liking of all concerned. Repressive and violent regimes around the world would be forced to take note...
So I cheered when Saddam's statue fell, and I looked forward to rapidly rebuilding the country and showing that for the first time (that I could think of) military force could actually be used for the good.
How naive can you get? I fell for it hook line and sinker.
This was never about building a new Iraq. This was about American power projection into a part of the world vital to American interests. Why did they do it? Because they could. And because they needed to, the worlds dwindling oil supplies are increasingly concentrated in the 5 countries Saudi Arabia Kuwait United Arab Emirates Iraq and ....Iran.
What we are getting in Iraq is nothing like the new democracy we thought it was worth fighting to achieve. The invasion was botched from the outset, not enough troops were deployed. Remember Saddam's information minister giving that last hasty comment to reporters on the roof of the Palestine hotel? About turning the towns and cities of Iraq into the swamps of Vietnam?
We failed to prevent the insurgency from taking hold. We are failing now to crush it. All the time its getting stronger and coalition forces are only able to function with the tacit acknowledgement of Tehran. The British forces in the south do not control Basra, Iran does. Nothing happens in that town without the approval or otherwise of Iran.
So we have kicked out Saddam, killed thousands, strengthened Iran, lost far too much of our own blood and treasure, and we havent even boosted oil production, because the insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters/Islamofascist-Ba'athist "dead enders" under Iranian control wont let us. No wonder they just announced the resumption of uranium enrichment. We have done our worst in the region, and the Mad Mullahs in Tehran are grinning from ear to ear.
Steve
Steve, at least you woke up and recognized the truth. I admire people who can do that. If only there were more.
BBB
BBB, But we must remember that this administration has spread all those misinformation about Iraq during that period - later to learn they were exaggerations or lies. They even hoodwinked the congress into okaying war. Bush even said recently that the congress saw the same intelligence as he did, but we all know that's a lie.
Where do we go from here? With the majority in congress - many sold their votes for money, are crooks and men without ethics.
And prayer will not help. We must clean house during the next election.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:How naive can you get? I fell for it hook line and sinker.
This was never about building a new Iraq. This was about American power projection into a part of the world vital to American interests. Why did they do it? Because they could.
Interesting, Steve. May I ask what it was that caused you to have the change of opinion? Just an epiphany?
It seems likely it's merely the protracted duration of the battle with the insurgency. Is that it? They put up a fight, so that changed "what it's all about"?
More "success" in Iraq.
January 4, 2006
More Than 40 Killed in String of Bombings in Central Iraq
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 4 - Insurgents killed more than 40 people in a string of bombings throughout Iraq today in the deadliest day since national parliamentary elections three weeks ago.
The most lethal blast killed at least 30 people when a suicide bomber struck an afternoon funeral procession for a relative of a local Shiite leader in Muqdadiyah, a restive city about 60 miles northeast of the capital.
Other bombs struck Shiite areas of Baghdad, where insurgents managed to penetrate a ring of security that had shut down bridges and rerouted traffic across much of central Baghdad following the kidnapping Tuesday afternoon of the sister of Interior Minister Bayan Jabr.
In addition to the 30 deaths, the Muqdadiyah attack wounded at least 36 others, according to an official at the interior ministry. It occurred after assailants fired mortars on the mourners, forcing them to take cover in the cemetery, The Associated Press reported. A bomber wearing an explosive vest then blew himself up among them. The cemetery was strewn with body parts and tombstones were covered with blood, news agencies reported.
