THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

cicerone imposter wrote:

What makes you think the violence will stop based on the past five year history?

Do you know that one-third of the Iraqi children are literally starving?

How will our staying improve the current killing fields and the starving children?

Why don't you and your family volunteer if you believe success is at hand?

Why dont you and your family volunteer to go to Iraq and work to help the children if you think its that bad?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
achieving success in Iraq

ican, how would you define "success in Iraq?"

The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month; the Iraq Government continues for one year to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers; and al-Qaeda continues for one year to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

Sounds pretty much like the situation before the invasion.

Don't you want to add something? Nothing about democracy, or freedom of speech, or liberty, or some such? Or maybe a restored infrastructure? Or oil revenues that will pay for the cost of the war? Nothing?

No! I do not want to add anything. Feel free yourself to add something.

I think if success as I have defined it is achieved, the things you suggest will be accomplished afterward by the Iraq government with our political/technical but not military assistance.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

ican wrote :

Quote:
al-Qaeda continues for one year to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

since many new al qaeda recruits seem to be entering iraq from other countries (such as iran) on a regular basis , why don't the U.S. troops close those borders and deny al qaeda access to iraq ?
by keeping insurgents - of any stripe - out of iraq , it would no doubt be easier to then go after the terrorists inside iraq .

if new insurgents are allowed to enter iraq (almost freely , i understand) ,
how would it be otherwise posssible to reduce the influx ?
at least hbg

Hamburger, at the moment I'm not discussing how to achieve success in Iraq. I'm discussing only A or B consequences.

However, your questions and comments deserve a response now.

I agree that the best way to deny sanctuary to terrorists of any stripe coming into Iraq is to close the Iraq borders with all its neighbors.

You ask why don't we do this? I don't know. I suspect we'll have to wait until Bush is replaced before this will happen. That assumes his replacement is less incompetent than is Bush.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

What makes you think the violence will stop based on the past five year history?

Do you know that one-third of the Iraqi children are literally starving?

How will our staying improve the current killing fields and the starving children?

Why don't you and your family volunteer if you believe success is at hand?

A = the consequences of our leaving without achieving success in Iraq.

B = the consequences of our staying until achieving success in Iraq.

Which consequences, A or B, do you think will result in the fewest mass murders of Iraqi non-murderers over the next ten years, and why do you think so?

Which consequences, A or B, do you think will result in the fewest mass murders of American non-murderers over the next ten years, and why do you think so?

Quote:

old europe wrote:
ican, how would you define "success in Iraq?"

ican711nm wrote:
The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month; the Iraq Government continues for one year to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers; and al-Qaeda continues for one year to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:
The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month; the Iraq Government continues for one year to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers; and al-Qaeda continues for one year to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

Did you share this information with Bush and general Petraeus?

0 Replies

Quote:

old europe wrote:
ican, how would you define "success in Iraq?"

ican711nm wrote:
The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month; the Iraq Government continues for one year to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers; and al-Qaeda continues for one year to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

ican :
how do you propose the iraqi government go about achieving the goals you have set out for them ?
if the U.S. army with all its sophisticated armaments is not able to achieve it , how are the iraqis to do it ?
there does not appear to be a unified army/police yet , so how are the iraqis to achieve it - by praying for help ?
surely the U.S. army/goverment should have been able to allow a stable government to be formed - and from that could follow the formation of a stable police and army force .
that it can be done , was shown by the allies in germany after WW II . are there any good reasons why similar results cannot be achieved in iraq ?
hbg

0 Replies

hbg: that it can be done , was shown by the allies in germany after WW II . are there any good reasons why similar results cannot be achieved in iraq ?

The big difference between Germany and Iraq is.....

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

Quote:
old europe wrote:
ican, how would you define "success in Iraq?"

ican711nm wrote:
The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month; the Iraq Government continues for one year to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers; and al-Qaeda continues for one year to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

ican :
how do you propose the iraqi government go about achieving the goals you have set out for them ?

First, the Iraq government must achieve consensus among its members that mutual cooperation is in all their mutual self interests. Until that happens--perhaps a year or two from now--they are not going to be able to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers.

if the U.S. army with all its sophisticated armaments is not able to achieve it , how are the iraqis to do it ?
there does not appear to be a unified army/police yet , so how are the iraqis to achieve it - by praying for help ?
surely the U.S. army/goverment should have been able to allow a stable government to be formed - and from that could follow the formation of a stable police and army force .
that it can be done , was shown by the allies in germany after WW II . are there any good reasons why similar results cannot be achieved in iraq ?

No, there are not any good reasons why similar results cannot be achieved in Iraq. But it will take much more time in Iraq's case, because Iraq, unlike Germany's case, has to cope with al-Qaeda, a group of suicidal mass murderers dedicated to driving out the US military any way it can--including but not limited to mass murdering fellow Muslims.
hbg

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month; the Iraq Government continues for one year to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers; and al-Qaeda continues for one year to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

Did you share this information with Bush and general Petraeus?

A = the consequences of our leaving without achieving success in Iraq.

B = the consequences of our staying until achieving success in Iraq.

Which consequences, A or B, do you think will result in the fewest mass murders of Iraqi non-murderers over the next ten years, and why do you think so?

Which consequences, A or B, do you think will result in the fewest mass murders of American non-murderers over the next ten years, and why do you think so?

Quote:

old europe wrote:
ican, how would you define "success in Iraq?"

ican711nm wrote:
The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month; the Iraq Government continues for one year to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers; and al-Qaeda continues for one year to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

0 Replies

The War as We Saw It

0 Replies

These paragraphs summerizes revel's post very well:

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

****

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

0 Replies

This is for ican posted by McT from another thread: There was a piece in my paper today which reminded us of how poor and how damaging and now how alienated Mr Bush is, even among Republicans.
Let me see if I can bring it to you.

0 Replies

The Iraqi government - both federal and state - are in shambles.

ican thinks the only "success" is to reduce the violence in Iraq to less than 1000 per month. ican seems to live in the same world as Bush; in another reality.

0 Replies

Revel, that's a great post, thanks.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The Iraqi government - both federal and state - are in shambles.

ican thinks the only "success" is to reduce the violence in Iraq to less than 1000 per month. ican seems to live in the same world as Bush; in another reality.

Cice, that statement about what I think is false and you know it.

Quote:

old europe wrote:
ican, how would you define "success in Iraq?"

ican711nm wrote:
The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month; the Iraq Government continues for one year to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers; and al-Qaeda continues for one year to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

(1) The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month;

(2) the Iraq Government continues for one year [after the occurrence of (1)] to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers;

(3) al-Qaeda continues for one year [after the occurrence of (1)] to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

As you know that's three conditions for success in Iraq and not "only" one.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
The Iraqi government - both federal and state - are in shambles.

ican thinks the only "success" is to reduce the violence in Iraq to less than 1000 per month. ican seems to live in the same world as Bush; in another reality.

Cice, that statement about what I think is false and you know it.

Quote:
old europe wrote:
ican, how would you define "success in Iraq?"

ican711nm wrote:
The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month; the Iraq Government continues for one year to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers; and al-Qaeda continues for one year to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

(1) The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month;

(2) the Iraq Government continues for one year [after the occurrence of (1)] to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers;

(3) al-Qaeda continues for one year [after the occurrence of (1)] to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

As you know that's three conditions for success in Iraq and not "only" one.

You might as well have ten, or fifty; none of those conditions are likely to happen, at all. And certainly not within a workable time frame for the US.

I don't know how you would even measure the third, as there's no real way to tell if members of AQ have sanctuary in one's country or not.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

revel wrote:

The War as We Saw It

Malarkey!

Force is not required. All the Iraq government has to do is ask the US military to leave. Then our military will be happy to begin leaving as rapidly as they can.

By the way, it is al-Qaeda that is robbing the Iraqi non-murderers of their self-respect--not the US. They will not reclaim or gain their self-respect until they finally remove al-Qaeda from Iraq.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

You might as well have ten, or fifty; none of those conditions are likely to happen, at all. And certainly not within a workable time frame for the US.

How do you know?

I don't know how you would even measure the third, as there's no real way to tell if members of AQ have sanctuary in one's country or not.

We learned that al-Qaeda gained sanctuary in Afghanistan in May 1996 before 9/11. We learned al-Qaeda gained sanctuary in Iraq in December 2001 before our invasion of Iraq. As for the rest of al-Qaeda's sanctuaries we learned about some of them before their first mass murder of non-murderers, and some we learned after. They are apparently difficult to hide.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Looks like ican stands alone in his stance on Iraq, and what he calls "success." LOL

US military looks to reduce role in Iraq

By ROBERT BURNS and LOLITA BALDOR, Associated Press Writers
2 hours, 10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - U.S. military officials are narrowing the range of Iraq strategy options and appear to be focusing on reducing the U.S. combat role in 2008 while increasing training of Iraqi forces, a senior military official told The Associated Press on Monday.

The military has not yet developed a plan for a substantial withdrawal of forces next year. But officials are laying the groundwork for possible overtures to Turkey and Jordan on using their territory to move some troops and equipment out of Iraq, the official said. The main exit would remain Kuwait, but additional routes would make it easier and more secure for U.S. troops leaving western and northern Iraq.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because internal deliberations are ongoing, emphasized that the discussions do not prejudge decisions yet to be made by President Bush. Those decisions include long to maintain the current U.S. troop buildup and when to make the transition to a larger Iraqi combat role.

It is widely anticipated that the five extra Army brigades that were sent to the Baghdad area this year will be withdrawn by late next summer. But it is far less clear whether the Bush administration will follow that immediately with additional drawdowns, as many Democrats in Congress are advocating.

Bush has mentioned publicly that he likes the idea, first proposed late last year by the Iraq Study Group, of switching the emphasis of U.S. military efforts from mainly combat to mainly support roles. But he also has said that this should not happen until Baghdad in particular is stable enough to enable Iraqi political leaders to make hard choices about reconciling rival interests among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

BTW, it says nothing about we will wait until the killings go below 1000 per month.

0 Replies

I don't see any of ican's 3 conditions even mentioned.

(1) The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month;

(2) the Iraq Government continues for one year [after the occurrence of (1)] to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers;

(3) al-Qaeda continues for one year [after the occurrence of (1)] to be denied sanctuary any where in Iraq by the Iraq government.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know