(1) the Iraq government will never be able to defend the Iraqi people against mass murder and therefore we should pull out immediately;
This is true: we cannot control a civil war that gets worse by the month.
Is there any way we can help stop the civil war from getting worse by the month? If there were such a way, should we implement it?
(2) a particular US strategy will enable the Iraq government to
eventually defend the Iraqi people against mass murder;
No, the Iraqi people must decide to stop killing their own country men/women and children.
Will any group of Iraqi people eventually decide to stop killing their own country men/women and children without outside help from the Coalition, or Syria, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Turkey? Will Americans eventually pay an unacceptable price if the Iraqi people do not eventually decide to stop killing their own country men/women and children.
(3) enabling the Iraq government to defend the Iraqi people against mass murder is not the responsibility of the US government;
A permanent crutch never works. They must learn to walk by themselves.
Don't temporary crutches work and aren't they often necessities for the disabled to eventually walk by themselves?
(4) the purpose of enabling the Iraq government to defend the Iraqi people against mass murder is to prevent Iraq from harboring al-Qaeda training camps;
No, it's not al Qaida that is a danger to Iraq. It's the influence of Iran and Saudi Arabia which has influence both politically and with arms.
Is al-Qaeda a major cause of the Iraqi people continuing to not stop killing their own country men/women and children? Will al-Qaeda be more effective in training and emigrating murderers to America and Europe if the Iraqi people continue to kill their own country men/women and children?
(5) the US could better prevent Iraq from harboring al-Qaeda training camps by invading such camps whenever they reappear;
No, that's the job for the Iraqis.
Why should the Iraqis take on that responsibility? How will taking on that responsibility benefit them?
(6) al-Qaeda is a threat easily controlled domestically by the US criminal justice system;
Al Qaida cannot easily transport men or weapons into our country. It's up to our federal government to make sure al Qaida members do not pass through our borders illegally. Unfortunately, thousands still cross our borders illegally.
Can the US government ever be successful in stopping al-Qaeda from intermixing with other US immigrants, subsequently shopping at Home Depots, and then subsequently murdering American men/women and children? If so, how can the US government accomplish that?
(7) et cetera.
et cetera.
and so on.
Quote:The US and the Kurds correctly reasoned that unless Saddam's regime were removed, al-Qaeda would come back a 3rd time after the US left Iraq.
This is nonsense and speculation. That small camp was set up on the Iranian border, not because of Saddam Hussein but of it safe location; in the mountains, away from Saddam and easy escape if attacked. Al Qaeda love international borders. Check out Afghanistan if you don't believe me.
Speculative nonsense
That initially small camp was set up by al-Qaeda in Iraq, in December 2001, on the Iranian border, because both Saddam Hussein and the Kurds were expected to tolerate it there and thereby allow it to become a safe location.
That initially small camp was set up by al-Qaeda, in May 1996, in Afghanistan on the Pakistan border (and elsewhere in Afghanistan), because the Taliban were expected to tolerate it there and thereby allow it to become a safe location.
If Saddam Hussein loved Al Qaeda as much as you believe he does they could have safely set up their camp anywhere outside of the Kurdish terrority under the umbrella of Saddam's military.
There you go again distorting my allegations. I have never written/said Saddam Hussein loved al-Qaeda. I have repeatedly written/said that Saddam Hussein tolerated/allowed al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq--in particular northeastern Iraq.
They did't though. They didn't because Saddam was not a friend of Al Qaeda. Religious fanatics don't readily make friends with secular dictators.
Al Qaeda had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq. It was strictly ideological.
On the contrary:
Quote:
www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens
If Al Qaeda was the principal reason for our military forces to make war then we would have stayed in Afghanistan and poured into it all the resource we have put into Iraq to find and destroy Osama bin laden, his organization and rebuild the country so it would have a strong stable government and not fall back to the Teliban. Instead, at the first chance, Bush turns his back on Al Qaeda and invades a country that was not a threat to us or anyone else. In the process of doing so he has allowed Al Qaeda to recover, grow stronger and destabilized Pakistan to the point it has given the province of Waziristan to the Teliban and Al Qaeda.
Yes, Bush screwed up in Afghanistan! He should never have allowed al-Qaeda people to escape Afghanistan and set up their operations in Iraq. But he did screw up! So he attempted to cure that screw up by also invading Iraq, removing its government and replacing its government with one less likely to tolerate/allow al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq after the Coalition left Iraq. But he screwed up again. He failed to adequately help the Iraqi people replace their former governent with one less likely to tolerate/allow al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq after the Coalition left Iraq. So now Bush is contemplating how to cure the consequences of his last screw up. Let's hope and pray he doesn't screw up again.
Quote:In recent weeks, Pakistani intelligence officials said the number of foreign fighters in the tribal areas was far higher than the official estimate of 500, perhaps as high as 2,000 today.
These fighters include Afghans and seasoned Taliban leaders, Uzbek and other Central Asian militants, and what intelligence officials estimate to be 80 to 90 Arab terrorist operatives and fugitives, possibly including the Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri.
The tightening web of alliances among these groups in a remote, mountainous area increasingly beyond state authority is potentially disastrous for efforts to combat terrorism as far away as Europe and the United States, intelligence officials warn.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/11/asia/web.1211pakistan.php
Do you know, so far as we know, who are still alive and well in Pakistan?
Osama bin Laden and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri.
If you wanted to destroy Al Qaeda you go after them, not invade a country that has a small band on the Iranian border.
It was a "small band" in December 2001. By March 2003, it had grown to be a large band in control of a dozen villages.
They weren't much of a threat to the Kurds, let alone the nation of Iraq or the the world. They were a pimple on a qnat's ass. And your telling me Bush let the head and heart of Al Qaeda go so he could pop a pimple?
That "pimple" in December 2001 became multiple boils by March 2003. In another few years it promised to grow like the boils in Afghanistan had grown from May 19, 1996 to September 11, 2001.
No, Bush turned his back on Al Qaeda so he could do what was on the neo-cons agenda before the 2000 election ever took place. That was regime change. To replace Saddam Hussein with a government that would be friendly with Israel and America. Once that was done Iran was to follow. The conservative idiots of this country are so fascinated with our power that they felt we could intimidate, invade or destroy anyone who defied us.
Iraq showed them the difference between conservative wet dreams and reality. We can destroy conventional forces at will but we can't make the population submit to us unless we become a Saddam Hussein.
Yes, Bush screwed up "big time."
Question for you ican. You said we should kill the bad guys; destroy them. Well a recent poll shows that 61% of the population of Iraq support attacks on American soldiers. If so do you think we should kill that 61%?
Quote:Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/
NO!
Anyone who supports killing American soldiers can't be a good guy, right?
WRONG!
How much of the population of Iraq are you willing to destroy in order to bring about stability?
ZERO!
How much of a Saddam Hussein are you?
ZERO!
ican wrote:Bush's regime was able to enter that Kurdish area without being requested to do so by any Kurds.
When did "Bush's regime" enter that Kurdish area prior to 2003?
I don't think it did.
Seeing as how the Kurds were, and are closely allied with the US administration, it would be merely a matter of formality for the Kurds to "request the US administration to enter the area of Iraq under the control of the Kurds. The same cannot be said of the relationship between the Kurds and Saddam.
Why not? The Kurds had previously invited Saddam to enter the area of Iraq under the control of the Kurds in 1996.
Quote:Even though the Kurds were in control of the area within which "al-Qaeda in Iraq" operated, the Kurds themselves were unable and/or unwilling without US help to enter that area and remove al-Qaeda.
This is false! The Kurds were able, willing and ready to strike at "al-Qaeda in Iraq" in the area that they operated. It was the US who put a halt to those plans, because it was about to invade and occupy Iraq.
Without evidence, that allegation of yours appears to merely be more of your pseudology.
Quote:
So what does that word control truly mean in the context of entry of northeastern Iraq? It cannot mean unable to enter! Both Saddam's regime and Bush's regime were able to enter that Kurdish area. Clearly, that word control in the context of entry of northeastern Iraq, means governed and not able to enter.
It is true, the word 'control' does not necessarily mean 'able to enter'. However, you are confounding the issue yet again, as is your want, by comparing the US' ability to enter that Kurdish area with Saddam's ability to enter said area. The US administration is a close ally of the Kurdish leadership in Iraq. Saddam was an enemy of the Kurdish leadership in Iraq. One faction of Kurds the KDP, were so desperate in their conflict with another faction of Kurds, the PUK, that they went so far as to solicit the assistance of their hated enemy, Saddam Hussein, in their bid to wrest control of the Kurdish town of Irbil.
That is a twist: "One faction of Kurds the KDP, were so desperate in their conflict with another faction of Kurds, the PUK, that they went so far as to solicit the assistance of their hated enemy, Saddam Hussein, in their bid to wrest control of the Kurdish town of Irbil." But they did in fact solicit the assistance of their alleged hated enemy, Saddam Hussein. Clearly a hatred of convenience.They again needed assistance with permanently removing al-Qaeda from northeastern Iraq, when they were assisted by US special forces to try and accomplish permanently removing al-Qaeda from northeastern Iraq.
But, to go back to the original point made, all of these details and reality make the statement, "surely, that US solicitation was sufficient for Saddam to enter the Kurdish autonomous zone: an area 'outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq'" anything but "sure." It makes this statement a mere conjecture.
This statement of yours without evidence to rebut my evidence to the contrary, is merely your conjecture.
