THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

old europe wrote:

Could anyone remind me, what a "victory" in Iraq would look like? I understand we have to "stay the course", we cannot "cut and run". But, uh, what exactly is the objective?

ObjectiveS:

(1) Stop al-Qaeda from growing in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(2) Exterminate al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(3) Replace the governments in Afghanistan and in Iraq with governments that will not tolerate/allow al-Qaeda to again obtain sanctuary in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

ican wrote:
ObjectiveS:

(1) Stop al-Qaeda from growing in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(2) Exterminate al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(3) Replace the governments in Afghanistan and in Iraq with governments that will not tolerate/allow al-Qaeda to again obtain sanctuary in Afghanistan and in Iraq.


Got a clue for you, ican. al Qaida has grown larger. Bush has only been successful at their growth. "Stopping" is an oxymoron in anybody's language.

Exterminating al Qaida in Afghanistan and Iraq is another misplaced goal. You probably haven't been reading how the Shias are now killing their own, and the sectarian violence has been getting worse with each "stay the course."

Replace the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you know what the primary goal of Bushco was from the beginning after we found no WMDs? It used to be "democracy." What ever happened to self-governance?

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican wrote:
ObjectiveS:

(1) Stop al-Qaeda from growing in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(2) Exterminate al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(3) Replace the governments in Afghanistan and in Iraq with governments that will not tolerate/allow al-Qaeda to again obtain sanctuary in Afghanistan and in Iraq.


Got a clue for you, ican. al Qaida has grown larger. Bush has only been successful at their growth. "Stopping" is an oxymoron in anybody's language.

Exterminating al Qaida in Afghanistan and Iraq is another misplaced goal. You probably haven't been reading how the Shias are now killing their own, and the sectarian violence has been getting worse with each "stay the course."

Replace the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you know what the primary goal of Bushco was from the beginning after we found no WMDs? It used to be "democracy." What ever happened to self-governance?

Got a clue for you, cicerone imposter: current failure to achieve an objective does not equate to never achieving that objective.

ican711nm wrote:

old europe wrote:

Could anyone remind me, what a "victory" in Iraq would look like? I understand we have to "stay the course", we cannot "cut and run". But, uh, what exactly is the objective?

ObjectiveS:

(1) Stop al-Qaeda from growing in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(2) Exterminate al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(3) Replace the governments in Afghanistan and in Iraq with governments that will not tolerate/allow al-Qaeda to again obtain sanctuary in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

[1] The turmoil and violence in Iraq is not nor has it been by Al-qaeda. It is by and large a tribal and sectarian civil war.

Zarqawi when he was alive claimed, and Zawahiri claims otherwise. Al-Qaeda instigated it. They promoted it. They are promoting it. The killers among the Sunni and the killers among the Shia are merely the willing pawns of al-Qaeda.

[2] Bush because of his obsession to attack Iraq pulled our forces out of Afghanistan. As a result both the Talban and Al-Qaeda regrouped and became more powerful

Bush did not pull out any of our troops from Afganistan until they were replaced by NATO troops. Some US troops still remain in Afghanistan.

[3] Is that your concept of democracy. Force a government to your liking upon the people of Iraq. Fat chance.

Neither the Iraqi people or the Afghan people were forced to vote. They voted nevertheless even at the risk of their lives. They risked being killed, while they voted, by the terrorists among them.

old europe wrote:

Could anyone remind me, what a "victory" in Iraq would look like? I understand we have to "stay the course", we cannot "cut and run". But, uh, what exactly is the objective?

ObjectiveS:

(1) Stop al-Qaeda from growing in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(2) Exterminate al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(3) Replace the governments in Afghanistan and in Iraq with governments that will not tolerate/allow al-Qaeda to again obtain sanctuary in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

old europe wrote:

Could anyone remind me, what a "victory" in Iraq would look like? I understand we have to "stay the course", we cannot "cut and run". But, uh, what exactly is the objective?

ObjectiveS:

(1) Stop al-Qaeda from growing in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(2) Exterminate al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(3) Replace the governments in Afghanistan and in Iraq with governments that will not tolerate/allow al-Qaeda to again obtain sanctuary in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Dys, what is peace with honor?

Rumsfeld and Snow were asked for the consequences should the Iraqi government fail to meet benchmarks. The answer, they said, is too complicated for the rest of us to comprehend. In other words, there is no change in their view that we must not cut and run.

ican711nm wrote:

old europe wrote:

Could anyone remind me, what a "victory" in Iraq would look like? I understand we have to "stay the course", we cannot "cut and run". But, uh, what exactly is the objective?

ObjectiveS:

(1) Stop al-Qaeda from growing in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(2) Exterminate al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(3) Replace the governments in Afghanistan and in Iraq with governments that will not tolerate/allow al-Qaeda to again obtain sanctuary in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

That's it? So the objective of bringing peace to the Middle East has been dropped? Democracy for the Iraqi people is no longer important? Freeing them from an oppressive regime has no priority, either?

Does that mean that if the Saddam regime was to be replaced by a regime following Sharia law, if the Iraqi people stayed dirt poor and if the civil war never ended the objectives would be reached, as long as the terrorists don't call themselves "al-Qaeda"?

...
What give dumbo another chance to screw things up even worse than he has already. How many more must die before you understand the extent of his ability to fail?.

au1929 wrote:

...
What give dumbo another chance to screw things up even worse than he has already. How many more must die before you understand the extent of his ability to fail?.

Damn it to hell! When are you going to wake up?

"Dumbo," or Bush, or Rumsfeld or America are not now the real issue and never were the real issue. The real issue is what is necessary to be done about the Middle East for the sake of humanity?

Ok, you judge the Bush administration to not be able to achieve the objectives for the Middle East necessary to protect humanity from what the Middle East has become and is threatening to become. I think you are probably right!


What do you want achieved in the Middle East, how do you recommend it be achieved, and by whom do you wish it achieved?

Today's political critics are irresponsible in that they claim that only criticism is their job, and proposing what they think is a better way is not their job.

I criticize today's political critics for this position. I disagree with it. From the moment one criticizes political behavior, one has assumed responsibility for proposing or describing a better political behavior.

I just did!

...
You ask what should be done to undo or in some way remedy the damage that Bush with his action has visited upon the middle east. Aside from being able to put the genie back in the bottle no one has
come up with a satisfactory answer to that question. Thanks to his action we are between a rock and a hard place.

Of one thing I am certain the gang that can't shoot straight in the white house will never come up with the answer. Would you buy another used car from a salesman who already sold you a lemon.

au1929 wrote:

...
You ask what should be done to undo or in some way remedy the damage that Bush with his action has visited upon the middle east. Aside from being able to put the genie back in the bottle no one has
come up with a satisfactory answer to that question. Thanks to his action we are between a rock and a hard place.

Of one thing I am certain the gang that can't shoot straight in the white house will never come up with the answer. Would you buy another used car from a salesman who already sold you a lemon.

I would not buy another used car from a salesman who already sold me a lemon. Unfortunately, under his current contract the current such salesman has job security until 1/20/09.

I am in the unfortunate position to have twice, not just once, been compelled to buy lemons from two different such salesmen--one about thirteen years before the current one.

Our best hope is to work with the one we now have to get him to do what works.

...
You ask what should be done to undo or in some way remedy the damage that Bush with his action has visited upon the middle east.
...

ican711nm wrote:

Our best hope is to work with the one we now have to get him to do what works.

I do not trust him and his gang of mental midgets to ever come up with the answer. In fact I am convinced left to there devices they will only worsen the situation.

...
i found a rather thorough article in 'foeign policy magazine' dealing with this complex subject :

...THE MIDDLE-EAST AND DEMOCRACY... .

...

Promoting democracy throughout the Middle East will require doing away with fantasies of a sudden U.S.-led transformation of the region and taking seriously the challenge of building credibility with Arab societies. Moreover, if the United States is to play a constructive supporting role, it must seriously revise its cozy relations with autocratic regimes, show a sustained ability to apply nuanced diplomatic pressure for political change at key junctures, and back up this pressure with well-crafted and well-funded assistance. Washington must prepare to accept emboldened political forces, and eventually new governments, that are uninterested in doing the United States' bidding. Embracing Middle East democracy in principle is easy; truly supporting it remains an enormous challenge.

Moreover, democracy is not a cure-all for terrorism. Like it or not, the most successful efforts to control radical Islamist political groups have been antidemocratic, repressive campaigns, such as those waged in Tunisia, Egypt, and Algeria in the 1990s. The notion that Arab governments would necessarily be more effective in fighting extremists is wishful thinking, no matter how valuable democratization might be for other reasons.