THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican wrote: I wrote:
Once the Iraq good guys with our help conquer the Iraq bad guys, they will [then] be able to maintain their victory. They will [then] be able to maintain their victory by removing bad guys as they develop instead of after they have [already] developed.

We've been in Iraq longer than WWII, and rather than seeing progress, situations are getting worse by the day. Our "help" has exacerbated the problems, because most Arab countries now hate us. How do you think most Arabs will feel with our continued involvement in Iraq, and our support of Israel?

WWII started in 1931 when the Japanese invaded China. It ended in 1945 after Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally--about 14 years later. The terrorist war began about 1986, some 20 years ago.

Yes, our help to date has exasperated the Iraq problem because our help was inadequate. Yes, we are hated because among other reasons our inadequate help to date has exasperated the problem. The first problem can be solved by our changing our strategy to the Search and Destroy Strategy that I discussed in previous posts over the last week. While all Arab hatred may not be eliminated by our employing this strategy, the problem of saving the lives and freedom of Iraq good guys will be solved. That's better than good enough.

0 Replies

For the US? You need to study US history.

0 Replies

Allied conferences
The Atlantic Charter was issued as a joint declaration by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, at Argentia, Newfoundland, on August 14, 1941.

In December 1941, after the United States entered the war, Churchill and Roosevelt met Stalin at the Arcadia Conference. They agreed that defeating Germany had priority over defeating Japan. To relieve German pressure on Russia, the US proposed a 1942 cross-channel invasion of France, which the British strongly opposed, suggesting instead a small invasion of Norway or landings in French North Africa. The Declaration by the United Nations was issued

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
So, to achieve peace under your plan, we have to:

-Accurately identify dozens of thousands of 'bad guys'

-Blow up their neighborhoods, whoops, I mean houses, in the middle of the night without them finding out that we are doing such things

-Get the Iraqi Police and Army up on their feet (a herculean task, seeing as this is where many of the 'bad guys' are doing their work/getting trained for free)

-Get the Iraqi gov'ts act together so that they can provide a logistical framework for the armed forces

-Close the borders of Iraq. The huge, long, mountainous borders must be closed.

-Solve the problem with violence in Syria and Iran as well.

...

Piece o' cake, we'll have her sewed right up in no time.

Cycloptichorn

Cycl, the problem has to be solved, whether it takes 10 years or 100 years, whether its a piece of cake or a whole cess pool; and whether you agree or not.

Try and specify a strategy that will really solve the problem . Your Leave and Explode Strategy will never solve the problem in a manner acceptable to younger generations that also want to live free and not in some totalitarian collective (e.g., "Big Brother" Collective).

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

For the US? ...

No! For humanity!
WWII started in 1931 when the Japanese invaded China. It ended in 1945 after Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally--about 14 years later. The terrorist war began about 1986, some 20 years ago.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Allied conferences
The Atlantic Charter was issued as a joint declaration by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, at Argentia, Newfoundland, on August 14, 1941.

In December 1941, after the United States entered the war, Churchill and Roosevelt met Stalin at the Arcadia Conference. They agreed that defeating Germany had priority over defeating Japan. To relieve German pressure on Russia, the US proposed a 1942 cross-channel invasion of France, which the British strongly opposed, suggesting instead a small invasion of Norway or landings in French North Africa. The Declaration by the United Nations was issued

So what?

For humanity!
WWII started in 1931 when the Japanese invaded China. It ended in 1945 after Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally--about 14 years later. The terrorist war began about 1986, some 20 years ago.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
So, to achieve peace under your plan, we have to:

-Accurately identify dozens of thousands of 'bad guys'

-Blow up their neighborhoods, whoops, I mean houses, in the middle of the night without them finding out that we are doing such things

-Get the Iraqi Police and Army up on their feet (a herculean task, seeing as this is where many of the 'bad guys' are doing their work/getting trained for free)

-Get the Iraqi gov'ts act together so that they can provide a logistical framework for the armed forces

-Close the borders of Iraq. The huge, long, mountainous borders must be closed.

-Solve the problem with violence in Syria and Iran as well.

...

Piece o' cake, we'll have her sewed right up in no time.

Cycloptichorn

Cycl, the problem has to be solved, whether it takes 10 years or 100 years, whether its a piece of cake or a whole cess pool; and whether you agree or not.

Try and specify a strategy that will really solve the problem . Your Leave and Explode Strategy will never solve the problem in a manner acceptable to younger generations that also want to live free and not in some totalitarian collective (e.g., "Big Brother" Collective).

First of all, I don't think that any state which evolves from Iraq will be a 'big brother' state at all. You throw around that term far to liberally.

If the younger generations want to live free, they will cast off their opressors and do so. It's the beauty of self-determination. What we're seeing right now is the opposite - the ugliness of trying to change someone else who isn't quite sure about it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Poll finds majority in U.S. backs timetable for pullout

By Maura Reynolds
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published December 13, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A majority of Americans favor setting a fixed timetable for bringing troops home from Iraq, and just 12 percent would support a plan to increase troop strength, an option under serious consideration by the military, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

A little more than a month after the midterm elections switched control of Congress to the Democrats, respondents expressed low confidence in President Bush's ability to resolve the conflict in Iraq. By a hefty margin they said Iraq should be the top priority for the new Congress, with a plurality of 45 percent saying they had more trust in Democrats to handle the war. Only 34 percent said they had more confidence in the president, who has rejected the idea of setting a timetable for withdrawing troops.

Nearly two-thirds said they believe Iraq has descended into "civil war."

At a time when the Bush administration is at work on a new strategy for Iraq and is resisting calls to start bringing troops home, the poll suggests that the president and his staff are out of step with public opinion.

"The public doesn't want the status quo any longer in Iraq and they believe the Democrats, rather than President Bush, will be best at finding a solution to the war," polling director Susan Pinkus said.

A 52 percent majority of the poll's respondents--including nearly 1 in 3 Republicans--said they preferred a "fixed timetable" for withdrawal, while only 26 percent favored the president's option of keeping troops on the ground until the country is secure.

Only about 1 in 8 expressed support for the option of increasing troop strength, which is favored by many Pentagon leaders and has been proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a likely presidential candidate.

"I'd rather get them home now," Marcia Downing, a 54-year-old homemaker from Nashville who is a registered Republican, said in a follow-up interview. "We are losing people day after day after day. ... Get our sons home."

The war appears to be the top issue on Americans' minds. In response to an open question about priorities for the new Congress, 27 percent of respondents listed Iraq as their top concern. The next two issues were health care at 16 percent and immigration at 11 percent.

Respondents from both parties expressed strong support for the recommendations released last week by the Iraq Study Group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton commission, which urged the administration to make a new diplomatic effort to engage Iraq's neighbors in stabilizing the country.

By 64 percent to 28 percent, respondents favored the group's recommendation to open direct talks with Iran and Syria.

"Dialogue is important in any resolution," said Terry Katz, 52, who runs a landscaping company in Cincinnati. "It's better to have friends than enemies."

Katz, who identified himself as Jewish, said he disagreed with the administration's decision to shun Iran because of its hostility to Israel and its nuclear weapons program, saying, "I think that's all the more reason to talk to them."

The Baker-Hamilton commission also encouraged the administration to shift the military mission in Iraq from combat to training, which would permit combat troops to withdraw by early 2008 and a smaller number of training advisers to remain, largely embedded with Iraqi security forces. Respondents also favored that option by nearly 2-1.

Overall, 56 percent of those who responded to the poll said they believed the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war for, compared to 40 percent who said it was. That result was roughly comparable to results from polls earlier this year.

The president's overall approval rating stood at 42 percent, generally in line with other results in the past year.

The poll of 1,489 adults conducted Dec. 8-11 had a margin of sampling error of 3 percentage points.

----------

Los Angeles Times

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

0 Replies

Source and page A6 of today's Chicago Tribune

0 Replies

ican, We're discussing US involvement in Iraq and WWII. What is it about this that you fail to understand?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
First of all, I don't think that any state which evolves from Iraq will be a 'big brother' state at all. You throw around that term far to liberally.

If the younger generations want to live free, they will cast off their opressors and do so. It's the beauty of self-determination. What we're seeing right now is the opposite - the ugliness of trying to change someone else who isn't quite sure about it.

Cycloptichorn

I think you are far too liberal in your denials of the self-declared objectives of the Leaders of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, al-Fatah, and Hamas. They repeatedly say they want to make Israel and America part of a worldwide Caliphate. They speciofy that Caliphate to be their concept of a Muslim state, intolerant of non-believers. Such a Caliphate would be an intolerant, tyrannical "Big Brother" state.

Casting off one's oppressors is not something accomplished merely by acts of will. It takes courage, perseverance, and especially capability also. For example, the Iranian people want to cast off their regime, but are unable to accomplish that because they currently lack sufficient courage, perseverance, and capability required to do so.

The same is true for 2/3rds of the Iraqi people--the live-free-Iraqis--who have made it clear by their votes they want to live free of their oppressors. They are being oppressed by a small minority of Iraqis and others with the will, courage, perseverance, and capability currently sufficient to oppress the live-free-Iraqis .

On the one hand, you oppose helping live-free-Iraqis with a Search and Destroy Strategy by America to destroy their oppressors that risks killing some live-free-Iraqis. On the other hand, you do not oppose a Leave and Ignore Stragegy by America that risks the oppressors of the live-free-Iraqis killing many more live-free-Iraqis. All this you justify on the basis of your principle of self-help by the helpless.

The live-free-Iraqis require America's help to live free. America and the rest of live-free-humanity will subsequently require the help of the live-free-Iraqis to live free of that intolerant, tyrannical, would be Caliphate.

0 Replies

ican, The US with only five percent of the world population cannot change the world into a US-type democracy.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, We're discussing US involvement in Iraq and WWII. What is it about this that you fail to understand?

What is it about what I write about this that you fail to understand?

WWII: Unconditional surrender by our enemy (i.e., German Nazis and Japanese Shintos) led to a live-free democratic Germany and a live-free democratic Japan.

Iraq War: Unconditional surrender by our enemy (i.e., al-Qaeda, Taliban and Baathists) will lead to a live-free democratic Iraq and a live-free democratic Afghanistan.

What is it you do not understand about that?

0 Replies

ican, In the first place, we're talking about the length of the wars; Iraq vs WWII for the US. In the second, there is no way to compare the wars against Japan and Germany to Iraq. We got involved in WWII because Japan attacked us. We got involved in Europe, because many of our allies asked us for our help. Iraq never attacked us or had the capability to attack us. Bush, in essence, started an illegal war against a sovereign country.

0 Replies

Americans Say U.S. Is Losing War
Public, Politicians Split on Iraq Panel's Ideas

By Peter Baker and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 13, 2006; A01

Most Americans think the United States is losing the war in Iraq and support a bipartisan commission's key proposals to change course, according to a poll released yesterday. But the Iraq Study Group's report has become a political orphan in Washington with little backing from either party.

Nearly eight in 10 Americans favor changing the U.S. mission in Iraq from direct combat to training Iraqi troops, the Washington Post-ABC News survey found. Sizeable majorities agree with the goal of pulling out nearly all U.S. combat forces by early 2008, engaging in direct talks with Iran and Syria and reducing U.S. financial support if Iraq fails to make enough progress.

Yet neither President Bush nor Democratic leaders who will take over Congress in three weeks have embraced the panel's report since it was released last week. Bush set it aside in favor of his own review, but, faced with conflicting advice within the administration, the White House said yesterday that plans to announce a new Iraq strategy by Christmas would be delayed until January. Democrats remain undecided and kept their distance while trying to pressure Bush.

"I don't think I've ever seen politicians walk away from something faster," said Gordon Adams, who was a White House defense budget official under President Bill Clinton.

The dichotomy between the public's support for the plan and the Washington establishment's ambivalence illustrates the complex political environment as Bush searches for a new strategy in a war that has outlasted U.S. involvement in World War II. A war-weary public appears hungry for ideas that would represent a major change, but political leaders remain uncertain whether the plan's proposals would improve the situation.

This is the mess created by Bush and his coherts by mismanaging this war from the very beginning. They are a bunch of incompetents running our government that have cost Americans in unnecessary loss of life and treasure.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, The US with only five percent of the world population cannot change the world into a US-type democracy.

Why not?

However, I am interested only in changing the world into live-free democracies. The constitutions the peoples of the world design to accomplish that are their business.

By the way, accomplishing that will help solve our immigration problem. Fewer people will seek to immigrate into the USA, because they will become satisfied with where they live.

0 Replies

There's no cure for stupid.

0 Replies

I have not checked in here for months, and when I pull up the site, there are all of the same arguments that have been here for three years.

I must weigh in on the announcement today that Bush will not report back to us until next year about any changes in Iraq policy.

I went ballistic about this last night and my husband asked what I was so angry about.

Our soldiers are dying every day, more this month so far than equivalent months in this entire war. So Bush allows himself to take a Christmas holiday and "think" about all of his options. While more soldiers die every day. How bizarre is that? How unthinking, how removed from reality? Wait, he says, until I have time to muddle through the few options that are left, wait and wait, and oh, yes, there will be a few hundred casualties but I am thinking...don't bother me while I am thinking.

0 Replies

Kara, To the point and obvious to most except people like ican. It's hopeless.

0 Replies

Most people who take on responsibility will stay up 24/7 to save lives. This yokel in the white house is a sociopath with no conscience.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, In the first place, we're talking about the length of the wars; Iraq vs WWII for the US. In the second, there is no way to compare the wars against Japan and Germany to Iraq. We got involved in WWII because Japan attacked us. We got involved in Europe, because many of our allies asked us for our help. Iraq never attacked us or had the capability to attack us. Bush, in essence, started an illegal war against a sovereign country.

WWII started in 1931 and ended in 1945. The war was followed by about 7 years of democratizing and rebuilding of the defeated countries.

Japan attacked the US in 1941 and shortly afterward declared war on the US. Shortly after that the US declared war on Japan. Shortly after that Germany declared war on the US. Shortly after that the US declared war on Germany. There were very few terrorist attacks in Germany and Japan after their unconditional surrenders.

The war in Iraq started in 2003, and ended in the defeat of the Iraq government in 2003. That has been followed to date by almost 4 years of foiled attempts to democratize and rebuild Iraq.

The US declared war on Iraq in October 2002, warning Iraq that the US would not tolerate Iraq harboring al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was established in Iraq under the northern no-fly zone in December 2001 and began growing rapidly. While the Iraq government had previously invaded the Kurdish area under the northern no-fly zone in 1996, the Iraq government did not invade the al-Qaeda camps near the same area after those camps were established. Terrorist attacks in Iraq began soon after the Iraq government was defeated and have grown in frequency and intensity ever since.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know