THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

[quote="Cycloptichorn]
...
The same goes for Iraqis. Not their fault that their country got messed up, but it sure is their problem. In the end it isn't the responsiblity nor the problem of the US; we can withdraw, go home, play defense, do whatever - though we will undoubtedly suffer the consequences of our folly, we don't have to live there. They do. Therefore it is a much bigger problem for them, then us, and I suggest they get their act together to solve it, because we won't be able to do anything about it.

Cycloptichorn

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
The same goes for Iraqis. Not their fault that their country got messed up, but it sure is their problem. In the end it isn't the responsiblity nor the problem of the US; we can withdraw, go home, play defense, do whatever - though we will undoubtedly suffer the consequences of our folly, we don't have to live there. They do. Therefore it is a much bigger problem for them, then us, and I suggest they get their act together to solve it, because we won't be able to do anything about it.

Cycloptichorn

Iraqi goodguys cannot solve their problem alone. No other country can solve their problem for them. It requires a partnership of goodguys in and outside Iraq to solve their problem. It is in the interest of goodguys everywhere that the Iraqi problem be solved. So I suggest they we all get our act together to solve it, because alone none of us will be able to solve it.

I reject this out of hand, because you don't have the authority to make statements such as 'Iraqi good guys cannot solve their problem alone.' You usually need to be correct about things, build up a reputation of knowledge, to make blanket statements such as this, and you have none of that lately...

Cycloptichorn

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cyclops,
Your candor is the only part of the preceding post I can respect. Holding responsible the victims of hideous crimes against humanity for their plight is deplorable. The suggestion is disgusting to the point of absurdity.

The woman dispatched along with her children by a car bomb is in no way responsible for her demise nor that of her children. I could easily fill a dozen pages with examples that demonstrate the absurdity of your position. So could you. Rethink it.

Thanks, I'm good on my position, though apparently you are having issues with reading comprehension these days.

I don't hold those in Iraq, or anywhere, who have been the victims of crime to be responsible for having caused their problems. Not at all.

The 'good guy' Iraqis have a far greater responsibility than to simply 'not kill each other.' They have the responsibility to stop those who wish to kill innocents from doing so. If they choose not to stop them, it is hardly our fault.

In the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, what goodguys were able to secure their freedom without the help of outside goodguys? Why believe that in the 21st century we will witness some good guys doing that by themselves?

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

The implication is vividly clear: You think the victims of these crimes have the responsibility to stop them.

What if they can't?

Don't bother answering as you've thoroughly demonstrated your apathy already.

Sadly, your beliefs coincide with the consensus of world opinion.

White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops

By Robin Wright and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 19, 2006; A01

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

The idea of a much larger military deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far, mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate. Any deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who were scheduled to go home.

A senior administration official said it is "too simplistic" to say the surge question has broken down into a fight between the White House and the Pentagon, but the official acknowledged that the military has questioned the option. "Of course, military leadership is going to be focused on the mission -- what you're trying to accomplish, the ramifications it would have on broader issues in terms of manpower and strength and all that," the official said.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said military officers have not directly opposed a surge option. "I've never heard them be depicted that way to the president," the official said. "Because they ask questions about what the mission would be doesn't mean they don't support it. Those are the kinds of questions the president wants his military planners to be asking."

The concerns raised by the military are sometimes offset by concerns on the other side. For instance, those who warn that a short-term surge would harm longer-term deployments are met with the argument that the situation is urgent now, the official said. "Advocates would say: 'Can you afford to wait? Can you afford to plan in the long term? What's the tipping point in that country? Do you have time to wait?' "

Which way Bush is leaning remains unclear. "The president's keeping his cards pretty close to his vest," the official said, "and I think people may be trying to interpret questions he's asking and information he's asking for as signs that he's made up his mind."

Robert M. Gates, who was sworn in yesterday as defense secretary, is headed for Iraq this week and is expected to play a decisive role in resolving the debate, officials said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's views are still open, according to State Department officials. The principals met again yesterday to continue discussions.

The White House yesterday noted the growing number of reports about what is being discussed behind closed doors. "It's also worth issuing a note of caution, because quite often people will try to litigate preferred options through the press," White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters.

Discussions are expected to continue through the holidays. Rice is expected to travel to the president's ranch near Crawford, Tex., after Christmas for consultations on Iraq. The administration's foreign policy principals are also expected to hold at least two meetings during the holiday. The White House has said the president will outline his new strategy to the nation early next year.

As the White House debate continues, another independent report on Iraq strategy is being issued today by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based crisis monitoring group that includes several former U.S. officials. It calls for more far-reaching policy revisions and reversals than did even the Iraq Study Group report, the bipartisan report issued two weeks ago.

The new report calls the study group's recommendations "not nearly radical enough" and says that "its prescriptions are no match for its diagnosis." It continues: "What is needed today is a clean break both in the way the U.S. and other international actors deal with the Iraqi government, and in the way the U.S. deals with the region."

The Iraqi government and military should not be treated as "privileged allies" because they are not partners in efforts to stem the violence but rather parties to the conflict, it says. Trying to strengthen the fragile government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will not contribute to Iraq's stability, it adds. Iraq's escalating crisis cannot be resolved militarily, the report says, and can be solved only with a major political effort.

The International Crisis Group proposes three broad steps: First, it calls for creation of an international support group, including the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's six neighbors, to press Iraq's constituents to accept political compromise.

Second, it urges a conference of all Iraqi players, including militias and insurgent groups, with support from the international community, to forge a political compact on controversial issues such as federalism, distribution of oil revenue, an amnesty, the status of Baath Party members and a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Finally, it suggests a new regional strategy that would include engagement with Syria and Iran and jump-starting the moribund Arab-Israeli peace process.

Quote:

In the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, what goodguys were able to secure their freedom without the help of outside goodguys? Why believe that in the 21st century we will witness some good guys doing that by themselves?

Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia.

Joe(for starters)Nation

Malaysia
The occupation of Malaya and Borneo by Japan (1942-45) during World War II generated tremendous changes in those territories.
...
The communists waged a violent and ultimately unsuccessful struggle supported by only a minority of the Chinese community. The British struggled to suppress the insurgency by military means, including an unpopular strategy that forcibly moved many rural Chinese into tightly controlled New Villages.
...
Hence, on September 16, 1963, the Federation of Malaysia was formed, with Sarawak and Sabah (East Malaysia) shifting from a Bornean to a peninsular orientation. Brunei, which had been invited to join, chose to remain a British protectorate and later became independent as a small, oil-rich Malay sultanate.

India
Britain's Parliament passed in July 1947 the Indian Independence Act, ordering the demarcation of the dominions of India and Pakistan by midnight of Aug. 14-15, 1947,

Pakistan
Pakistan came into existence as two entities, West and East Pakistan, and as a dominion within the Commonwealth in August 1947.

Indonesia
War in Europe and the Pacific changed the situation. The fall of the Indies to the Japanese onslaught early in 1942 broke the continuity of Dutch rule and provided a completely new environment for nationalist activity.
...
After the news of the Japanese surrender had been confirmed, Sukarno proclaimed independence on the morning of Aug. 17, 1945.
...
The proclamation touched off a series of risings across Java that convinced the British troops entrusted with receiving the surrender of Japanese forces that the self-proclaimed republic was to be taken seriously. At the level of central government, the constitution adopted by republican leaders was presidential in form, but a widely representative Central Indonesian National Committee became, in effect, an ad hoc parliament. Sukarno, as president, agreed to follow parliamentary conventions by making his cabinets dependent upon their ability to command the committee's confidence.

Well, clearly outside help (coalition) has not solved the problem as even more violence just keeps piling up the bodies everyday with no light at the end of the tunnel to give any hope of things getting better.
...

They attempt to portray the insurgency as a powerful force to be reckoned with for years to come. "There will be no negotiating," an announcer states. "For us, it's straight and simple. We are fighting for our religion and for our soil. We will fight you while you are packing. We will fight you while you are sleeping. We will fight you as you are evacuating your last soldier."

Damn, sounds like Churchill in WWII.

Some of the images of Americans being attacked are available on the Web and in video shops in Iraq. Some U.S. military officers shrug off Al Zawraa, saying it rarely broadcasts anything new.

Some viewers acknowledge the station's sectarian biases but say it's no different from other new Iraqi channels beholden to political blocs.

Or Fox News.

"Al Zawraa is not serving the interest of the Iraqi people," said Zaid Farooq, a 33-year-old Baghdad electrical engineer. "They are saying bad things about the government. But we can't blame Al Zawraa when there are other channels like Al Iraqiya," the state-owned station.

Though Al Zawraa rarely praises or shows footage of the many insurgent attacks on Iraqi civilians and security forces, it's the station's sectarian agenda that most irks the Shiite-dominated government. After Iraqis held a reconciliation conference Saturday meant to heal wounds between Sunnis and Shiites, the station quickly broadcast denunciations of the meeting by the Muslim Scholars Assn., a leading Sunni clerical group.

A recent segment showed Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr sitting among a group of clerics and ordering an unseen person to "send them in there as soldiers," a suggestion that his men had infiltrated the security forces and were taking part in death-squad operations against Sunnis.

An announcer alleged that Sadr, a critic of U.S. policies here, had stopped his fight against the Americans and was now focusing his efforts against Sunnis.

Iraqi government efforts to track down the renegade station have come to naught. No one's quite sure where it broadcasts from or even who is behind it. Iraqi national security advisor Mowaffak Rubaie and a senior U.S. military official said it was broadcasting from somewhere near the Kurdish city of Irbil at one point and recently signed a distribution deal with the Egyptian satellite company NileSat.

There are indications that the Iraqi government is still looking for Al Zawraa. Police in the Sunni city of Hawija near Kirkuk raided the home of another member of Jaburi's parliamentary bloc Sunday, arresting him and two others on unspecified security charges.

I conclude (2), because the Iraqi goodguys cannot solve their problem by themselves

and because the problem must be solved for the sake of the rest of humanity's goodguys as well as for the sake of the Iraqi goodguys

While all problems we encounter do not have to be solved, the Iraq problem must be solved. The consequences of not solving the Iraq problem are intolerable.

...

Quote:

White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops

By Robin Wright and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 19, 2006; A01

...
The Iraqi government and military should not be treated as "privileged allies" because they are not partners in efforts to stem the violence but rather parties to the conflict, it says. Trying to strengthen the fragile government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will not contribute to Iraq's stability, it adds. Iraq's escalating crisis cannot be resolved militarily, the report says, and can be solved only with a major political effort.

The International Crisis Group proposes three broad steps: First, it calls for creation of an international support group, including the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's six neighbors, to press Iraq's constituents to accept political compromise.

Second, it urges a conference of all Iraqi players, including militias and insurgent groups, with support from the international community, to forge a political compact on controversial issues such as federalism, distribution of oil revenue, an amnesty, the status of Baath Party members and a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Finally, it suggests a new regional strategy that would include engagement with Syria and Iran and jump-starting the moribund Arab-Israeli peace process.

part about International Crisis Group

...
the allied troops did not stay in germany to help the german good guys defend themselves against the german bad guys .
i'm reasonably sure ican knows that - or am i badly mistaken ?
...
hbg

Quote:

I conclude (2), because the Iraqi goodguys cannot solve their problem by themselves

Assertion, no facts to back this up

Oh yes, I did provide facts to back it up. I posted examples of four countries--one in the 18th century--that required the help of others to win and/or sustain their freedom for their goodguys from their bad guys.

It is you who have provided no facts to back up your claim that the Iraqi goodguys can solve their problem by themselves.

Quote:

and because the problem must be solved for the sake of the rest of humanity's goodguys as well as for the sake of the Iraqi goodguys

Assertion. The 'rest of the worlds' good guys will probably get on the same way they got on before the war. You have no evidence that the future of humanity is threatened by the outcome of this war.

Oh yes, I have provided evidence that the future of humanity is threatened by the outcome of the war in Iraq (e.g., claims and efforts by al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria). It is you who have provided no evidence to refute my evidence that the future of humanity is threatened by the outcome of the war in Iraq. And furthermore, you have provided no evidence to support your claim: "The 'rest of the worlds' good guys will probably get on the same way they got on before the war."

Quote:

While all problems we encounter do not have to be solved, the Iraq problem must be solved. The consequences of not solving the Iraq problem are intolerable.

Assertion. What would the consequences be, and why would they be any more intolerable than other difficult situations?

Badguys mass murdering goodguys is intolerable. Tolerating the increase in the number of goodguys mass murdered by badguys is even more intolerable.

Human space travel to Mars and beyond is an example of a problem that does not have to be solved. Failure to solve that problem does not enable the murder of goodguys by badguys.

Of course, there are those like me who claim that humanity would be better off if all of it concentrated on conquering space instead of any of itself.

Making everyone equally wealthy is an example of another problem that does not have to be solved. In fact, trying to solve that problem will more likely make everyone equally poor. Ultimately, it would be better to enable everyone to be self-reliant in their pursuit of happiness. Such guys would be too busy pursuing their own happiness to murder other guys.

But failure to solve the Iraq problem is a failure to stop the problem of badguys mass murdering goodguys. That failure in Iraq will probably lead to that failure in neighboring countries; followed by that failure in more distant countries.

Previously succeeding in solving that problem in other countries has proved successful in stopping the spread of that problem to other countries (e.g., WWII 1931-45, Central American Wars 1959-89).

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

I conclude (2), because the Iraqi goodguys cannot solve their problem by themselves

Assertion, no facts to back this up

Oh yes, I did provide facts to back it up. I posted examples of four countries--one in the 18th century--that required the help of others to win and/or sustain their freedom for their goodguys from their bad guys.

It is you who have provided no facts to back up your claim that the Iraqi goodguys can solve their problem by themselves.

Quote:

and because the problem must be solved for the sake of the rest of humanity's goodguys as well as for the sake of the Iraqi goodguys

Assertion. The 'rest of the worlds' good guys will probably get on the same way they got on before the war. You have no evidence that the future of humanity is threatened by the outcome of this war.

Oh yes, I have provided evidence that the future of humanity is threatened by the outcome of the war in Iraq (e.g., claims and efforts by al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria). It is you who have provided no evidence to refute my evidence that the future of humanity is threatened by the outcome of the war in Iraq. And furthermore, you have provided no evidence to support your claim: "The 'rest of the worlds' good guys will probably get on the same way they got on before the war."

Quote:

While all problems we encounter do not have to be solved, the Iraq problem must be solved. The consequences of not solving the Iraq problem are intolerable.

Assertion. What would the consequences be, and why would they be any more intolerable than other difficult situations?

Badguys mass murdering goodguys is intolerable. Tolerating the increase in the number of goodguys mass murdered by badguys is even more intolerable.

Human space travel to Mars and beyond is an example of a problem that does not have to be solved. Failure to solve that problem does not enable the murder of goodguys by badguys.

Of course, there are those like me who claim that humanity would be better off if all of it concentrated on conquering space instead of any of itself.

Making everyone equally wealthy is an example of another problem that does not have to be solved. In fact, trying to solve that problem will more likely make everyone equally poor. Ultimately, it would be better to enable everyone to be self-reliant in their pursuit of happiness. Such guys would be too busy pursuing their own happiness to murder other guys.

But failure to solve the Iraq problem is a failure to stop the problem of badguys mass murdering goodguys. That failure in Iraq will probably lead to that failure in neighboring countries; followed by that failure in more distant countries.

Previously succeeding in solving that problem in other countries has proved successful in stopping the spread of that problem to other countries (e.g., WWII 1931-45, Central American Wars 1959-89).

Cycloptichorn

Making everyone equally secure is an example of another problem that does not have to be solved. In fact, trying to solve that problem will more likely make everyone equally in dagner. Ultimately, it would be better to enable everyone to be self-reliant in their pursuit of security. Such guys would be too busy pursuing their own happiness to murder other guys.