THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

I agree with that, Xingu.

I still believe that Iraq could be pacified through a few means:

1, an influx of a few million troops from various countries around the world. Massively overpower the resistance, including Shiite militas as well as sunnis. This isn't going to happen.

2, We forcefully separate the country into partitions. Some of this is already happening. We aren't going to do this, but it could solve some of the problems (though it would end 'iraq').

3, We glass the place. This isn't going to happen either.

---

I completely agree with you that nothing we do there is gaining us any love from the Muslims as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Xingu wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The 'A' group (hereafter referred to as 'we') don't believe that we can't win in Iraq, but that we won't win in Iraq. There are a variety of things that we could do to win the war in Iraq; none of them are going to be done, so, I do not perceive success coming from this endeavor.

Liked what your wrote but I have some doubts as to can't and won't. I think we could have won but today I believe we have reached a point of no return; we can't win. There is just to much hate for us. We have killed to many innocent people for the Iraqis to trust or accept us. This Blackwater case is just a long string of many incidences we don't hear about but the Iraqis are all to familiar with.

There's to much corruption in the Iraqi government and our contractors. Our troops are maxed out and can't be there indefinitely. We're getting more resistance in Afghanistan because we let the country go to hell so we could play war games in Iraq. And on top of that we're slowly talking ourselves into attacking Iran. God knows what the consequences of that will be.

It seems everything we're doing is driving us in one direction; lets see how much we can get the Muslims to hate us.

We're heavily involved in two Muslim countries and talking about attacking a third. We're in a no win situation.

And we're making Al Qaeda stronger. The more Muslims hate us the more sympathy and support AQ and any other insurgent groups get.

xingu, Good analysis; we have seen the results from the time Saddam was taken out when Iraqis celebrated by destroying his statues to now when most Iraqis approve of killing US soldiers. That's not progress by any stretch of the imagination - except for ican, Bush and Petraeus. As more innocent Iraqis die from this war, we are seen as the enemy, not as liberators. That's the reason why our staying longer only creates more enemies, not friends.

0 Replies

The problem with partitioning is oil. Where will the Sunnis get their oil revenue from? They will fight to the end if they are denied oil revenue.

The Kurds want to keep all their oil revenues for themselves. The Shiites hate the Sunnis and won't give them Shiit. This has to be a political solution and at present no one want to compromise. And why should they? Our presence in Iraq protects the Kurds, our best friends, for now, in Iraq; it preserves the Shiite government and allows the Shiites to purge Baghdad of Sunnis. That's the problem with our presence in Iraq; it doesn't solve anything, it just keeps things going on and on and on.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

The problem with partitioning is oil. Where will the Sunnis get their oil revenue from? They will fight to the end if they are denied oil revenue.

The Kurds want to keep all their oil revenues for themselves. The Shiites hate the Sunnis and won't give them Shiit. This has to be a political solution and at present no one want to compromise. And why should they? Our presence in Iraq protects the Kurds, our best friends, for now, in Iraq; it preserves the Shiite government and allows the Shiites to purge Baghdad of Sunnis. That's the problem with our presence in Iraq; it doesn't solve anything, it just keeps things going on and on and on.

Again, agreed. The problem for the Sunnis is that they are, in a very real way, facing genocide. They can fight, but if push comes to shove, they will lose; so partition may be their best overall option.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And Saudi Arabia said it will not allow that to happen. We're between the rock and the hard place. If we stay things will just go on for who knows how long. If we leave there's the potential that it could spread to other countries in the Middle East.

George Bush has done a fine job of screwing America.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

And Saudi Arabia said it will not allow that to happen. We're between the rock and the hard place. If we stay things will just go on for who knows how long. If we leave there's the potential that it could spread to other countries in the Middle East.

George Bush has done a fine job of screwing America.

Let it spread, I say. We have no responsibility to stop people from fighting each other if they choose. That's the job of the UN, which we show no leadership in whatsoever.

Oil will jump up in price and we will enter a serious recession. But that's okay. You have to have ups and downs from time to time, and trying to use huge forces to stop inevitable declines leads to worse declines.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And the Iraqis. Bush exacerbated what was already a foregone conclusion, because he failed to listen to the experts.

0 Replies

When ideology rules you there are no other experts. The ideology is God.

0 Replies

If all that you folks allege here were true, then why doesn't the Iraq Parliament ask the US to leave Iraq? What are they afraid of if they ask us to leave? Are they afraid Bush will beat 'em up? Are they afraid of what will happen to them if we were to leave? What keeps them from throwing us out?

Maybe, just maybe, all that you folks allege is malarkey. But I suspect that your ideology prevents you from facing that possibility.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

If all that you folks allege here were true, then why doesn't the Iraq Parliament ask the US to leave Iraq? What are they afraid of if they ask us to leave? Are they afraid Bush will beat 'em up? Are they afraid of what will happen to them if we were to leave? What keeps them from throwing us out?

Maybe, just maybe, all that you folks allege is malarkey. But I suspect that your ideology prevents you from facing that possibility.

No, the Iraqi parliament doesn't ask us to leave, b/c we are protecting the majority Shiites and advancing their rise to power. The politicians don't want us to leave, for their own personal reasons - they are making, in many cases, gigantic profits off of the nearly 3 billion a week we spend in Iraq. Who wants to kill the cash cow?

I know that you can understand the idea that people who are elected don't necessarily represent the will of those who elected them; you Republicans complain about that happening here, in America, constantly. Why is it so hard to believe in Iraq?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The cost of a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq similar to the peacekeeping role American troops have played in South Korea would range from $10 billion to $25 billion a year, the Congressional Budget Office said Thursday.

A Korea-like presence of 55,000 troops would cost about $25 billion a year in a "combat" scenario similar to the current mission, the nonpartisan CBO said in a report.

Keeping the troops protected at established military bases and out of combat would lower the cost to about $10 billion annually. One-time costs for base construction or additional equipment could reach $8 billion, the CBO said.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., requested the study after President Bush likened America's future in Iraq to the peacekeeping role U.S. troops play in South Korea, where they have been stationed for some five decades.

Congress has already appropriated $412 billion for the Iraq mission, CBO says, with costs for operations there and in Afghanistan expected to require an almost $200 billion additional appropriation for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

"The Bush administration has been trying to hide the cost of this war every step of the way," Conrad said. "Now the president is considering a significant ongoing presence in Iraq, long after he leaves office."

While it's plain long-term troop levels in Iraq will be determined by future presidents and Congresses, sentiment within the Bush administration is to station U.S. troops in Iraq for a considerable period.

"Assuming the conditions prevail in Iraq that allow us to continue the drawdown that the president has talked about, the idea is that we would have a much more limited role in Iraq for some protracted period of time, a stabilizing force, a force that would be a fraction of the size of what we have there now," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday.

Gates did not estimate how large a presence would be needed.

The war in Iraq is now chiefly responsible for the ongoing federal budget deficit, which CBO says will total $158 billion for the current fiscal year. While costs would sharply decrease in the future under the Korea-like scenario, annual costs of $25 billion still would equal about two-thirds of the budget for homeland security.

source

0 Replies

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070912/OPINION03/709120368/1039/OPINION03

Quote:

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Good comparison.

0 Replies

Bush still thinks it's about Saddam.

"Part of the reason why there's not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
If all that you folks allege here were true, then why doesn't the Iraq Parliament ask the US to leave Iraq? What are they afraid of if they ask us to leave? Are they afraid Bush will beat 'em up? Are they afraid of what will happen to them if we were to leave? What keeps them from throwing us out?

Maybe, just maybe, all that you folks allege is malarkey. But I suspect that your ideology prevents you from facing that possibility.

No, the Iraqi parliament doesn't ask us to leave, b/c we are protecting the majority Shiites and advancing their rise to power. The politicians don't want us to leave, for their own personal reasons - they are making, in many cases, gigantic profits off of the nearly 3 billion a week we spend in Iraq. Who wants to kill the cash cow?

I know that you can understand the idea that people who are elected don't necessarily represent the will of those who elected them; you Republicans complain about that happening here, in America, constantly. Why is it so hard to believe in Iraq?

Cycloptichorn

Yes, people who are elected don't necessarily represent the will of the people. Yes, those claiming to know the will of the people do not necessarily not know the will of the people.

Yes, people who are elected don't necessarily not represent the will of the people. Yes, those claiming to know the will of the people do not necessarily know the will of the people.

That aside, if the members of the Iraqi government think it in their own interest to have the US remain in Iraq why do you believe the Iraqi people do not think the same thing? More to the point, why hasn't the Iraq Parliament voted on whether the US shall be asked to go or stay? I bet the answer is it's not really an issue with the Iraqi people, but it is really an issue with the news media.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
If all that you folks allege here were true, then why doesn't the Iraq Parliament ask the US to leave Iraq? What are they afraid of if they ask us to leave? Are they afraid Bush will beat 'em up? Are they afraid of what will happen to them if we were to leave? What keeps them from throwing us out?

Maybe, just maybe, all that you folks allege is malarkey. But I suspect that your ideology prevents you from facing that possibility.

No, the Iraqi parliament doesn't ask us to leave, b/c we are protecting the majority Shiites and advancing their rise to power. The politicians don't want us to leave, for their own personal reasons - they are making, in many cases, gigantic profits off of the nearly 3 billion a week we spend in Iraq. Who wants to kill the cash cow?

I know that you can understand the idea that people who are elected don't necessarily represent the will of those who elected them; you Republicans complain about that happening here, in America, constantly. Why is it so hard to believe in Iraq?

Cycloptichorn

Yes, people who are elected don't necessarily represent the will of the people. Yes, those claiming to know the will of the people do not necessarily not know the will of the people.

Yes, people who are elected don't necessarily not represent the will of the people. Yes, those claiming to know the will of the people do not necessarily know the will of the people.

That aside, if the members of the Iraqi government think it in their own interest to have the US remain in Iraq why do you believe the Iraqi people do not think the same thing? More to the point, why hasn't the Iraq Parliament voted on whether the US shall be asked to go or stay? I bet the answer is it's not really an issue with the Iraqi people, but it is really an issue with the news media.

Sorry, but polling - from many different sources - has shown that the vast majority of Iraqis seek our withdrawal from their country. I know that you have chosen not to believe any of those polls, b/c they are inconvenient to your position. But that doesn't make them inaccurate in any fashion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The following article the Washington Post from almost one year ago.

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show
Leaders' Views Out of Step With Public

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A22

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.

Women survey the aftermath of a car bomb. Nearly three-quarters of residents in one poll said they would feel safer if U.S.-led troops left Iraq. Some Iraqis say they believe the U.S. presence has fueled sectarian warfare. (By Samir Mizban -- Associated Press)

Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.

The stark assessments, among the most negative attitudes toward U.S.-led forces since they invaded Iraq in 2003, contrast sharply with views expressed by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Last week at the United Nations, President Jalal Talabani said coalition troops should remain in the country until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."

"Only then will it be possible to talk about a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq," he said.

Recent polls show many Iraqis in nearly every part of the country disagree.

"Majorities in all regions except Kurdish areas state that the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) should withdraw immediately, adding that the MNF-I's departure would make them feel safer and decrease violence," concludes the 20-page State Department report, titled "Iraq Civil War Fears Remain High in Sunni and Mixed Areas." The report was based on 1,870 face-to-face interviews conducted from late June to early July.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
If all that you folks allege here were true, then why doesn't the Iraq Parliament ask the US to leave Iraq? What are they afraid of if they ask us to leave? Are they afraid Bush will beat 'em up? Are they afraid of what will happen to them if we were to leave? What keeps them from throwing us out?

Maybe, just maybe, all that you folks allege is malarkey. But I suspect that your ideology prevents you from facing that possibility.

No, the Iraqi parliament doesn't ask us to leave, b/c we are protecting the majority Shiites and advancing their rise to power. The politicians don't want us to leave, for their own personal reasons - they are making, in many cases, gigantic profits off of the nearly 3 billion a week we spend in Iraq. Who wants to kill the cash cow?

I know that you can understand the idea that people who are elected don't necessarily represent the will of those who elected them; you Republicans complain about that happening here, in America, constantly. Why is it so hard to believe in Iraq?

Cycloptichorn

Yes, people who are elected don't necessarily represent the will of the people. Yes, those claiming to know the will of the people do not necessarily not know the will of the people.

Yes, people who are elected don't necessarily not represent the will of the people. Yes, those claiming to know the will of the people do not necessarily know the will of the people.

That aside, if the members of the Iraqi government think it in their own interest to have the US remain in Iraq why do you believe the Iraqi people do not think the same thing? More to the point, why hasn't the Iraq Parliament voted on whether the US shall be asked to go or stay? I bet the answer is it's not really an issue with the Iraqi people, but it is really an issue with the news media.

Sorry, but polling - from many different sources - has shown that the vast majority of Iraqis seek our withdrawal from their country. I know that you have chosen not to believe any of those polls, b/c they are inconvenient to your position. But that doesn't make them inaccurate in any fashion.

Cycloptichorn

You believe those polls because they are convenient to your position. But that doesn't make those polls accurate.

The two questions they do not ask are:
(1) Do you want the Americans to leave before your government can protect you against those mass murdering your fellow Iraqis?
(2) Do you want the Americans to leave after your government can protect you against those mass murdering your fellow Iraqis?

Suppose I were to be polled: Do you want the Americans to leave Iraq? I would of course answer, YES!

But suppose I were to be polled: Do you want the Americans to leave Iraq before the Iraq government can protect the Iraqi people against those mass murdering Iraqis? I would of course answer NO! While thinking to myself, HELL NO!

But suppose I were to be polled: Do you want the Americans to leave Iraq after the Iraqi government can protect the Iraqi people against those mass murdering Iraqis? I would of course answer YES! While thinking to myself, HELL YES!

Based on the behavior of the Iraqi Parliament to date, I conclude the Iraqi people would answer those questions the same as I would.

I can only guess why the pollers don't ask those two questions. My guess is that they want to obtain results that are convenient to their position.

Also I want evidence of a random sample among the various Kurd, Sunni, and Shia people

By the way, I'm still stunned over the fact that you fear government monitoring your international communications more than you fear being a victim of terrorists.

Your fear of denying Habeas Corpus to terrorist prisoners who are not lawful residents of the US, because you might be denied such too, is just as stunning. Shocked

Writ of Habeas Corpus = a writ for protecting the right of a person to obtain protection against illegal imprisonment.

Writ of Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum = a writ for inquiring into the lawfulness of the restraint of a person who is imprisoned or detained in another's custody.

Terrorists are no different than any other prisoners of war!

0 Replies

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
5 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats defiantly charged ahead Thursday with legislation ordering troops home from Iraq, still lacking the votes to win but armed with the mantra that Republicans, along with President Bush, now own the war.

"They want this war more than they want to protect our soldiers," Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters. "When I say they want the war, they want to protect their president more than they want to protect our troops."

0 Replies

Quote:

Terrorists are no different than any other prisoners of war!

Who determines the "terrorist" are terrorist? The government is not omniscient. People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law of some kind. Someone accused of terroism should be allowed to defend themselves in that court.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know