THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

mcg wrote :

Quote:

Why you would make a comparison between a country completely ravaged by years of war with a country barely touched by weeks of war. Why you would compare a country with little religious strife with a country wrought with it.

(was there religious strife BEFORE the ocupation ? hbg)

Yes, there was, but Saddam killed anyone that tried to make an issue of it. Are you suggesting we should try that?

Why you think a comparison with post WWII Germany would have any similarities with post GWII Iraq.

(i would think that if the allies were able to provide security for civilians on the large scale needed after WW II , it should not have presented any great difficulties to the U.S. to provide security for the much smaller population of iraq . hbg)

Germans were not killing each other in an attempt to gain control of their few kilometers and there were no foreign jihadists stirring up conflict.
I think that is a little unclear.

it is my understanding that the geneva convention does NOT make a distinction between various occupied countries but simply states that "security for the civilian population is the responsibility of the occupying forces " .
to the best of my knowledge , there was never an attempt to provide an acceptable level of security for the civilian population .
do you think that is acceptable ?
should the geneva convention re. security for civilians NOT apply in the case of iraq ?
hbg

hamburger wrote:

mcg wrote :

Quote:

Why you would make a comparison between a country completely ravaged by years of war with a country barely touched by weeks of war. Why you would compare a country with little religious strife with a country wrought with it.

(was there religious strife BEFORE the ocupation ? hbg)

Yes, there was, but Saddam killed anyone that tried to make an issue of it. Are you suggesting we should try that?

Why you think a comparison with post WWII Germany would have any similarities with post GWII Iraq.

(i would think that if the allies were able to provide security for civilians on the large scale needed after WW II , it should not have presented any great difficulties to the U.S. to provide security for the much smaller population of iraq . hbg)

Germans were not killing each other in an attempt to gain control of their few kilometers and there were no foreign jihadists stirring up conflict.
I think that is a little unclear.

it is my understanding that the geneva convention does NOT make a distinction between various occupied countries but simply states that "security for the civilian population is the responsibility of the occupying forces " .
to the best of my knowledge , there was never an attempt to provide an acceptable level of security for the civilian population .
do you think that is acceptable ?
should the geneva convention re. security for civilians NOT apply in the case of iraq ?
hbg

What do you believe the US should do to provide an acceptable level of security for the civilian population?

I wish I could be as casual with other peoples lives as you are. I must admit a tiny bit of envy.

What do you believe the US should do to provide an acceptable level of security for the civilian population?

mcg asked :

Quote:

What do you believe the US should do to provide an acceptable level of security for the civilian population?

i think i can provide a fairly simple answer to mcg's question .

it is the responsibility of the occupying force to provide SECURITY for the civilians of the occupied country .
i do not believe that it is stated anywhere that if the occupying forces find it too difficult , too expensive - whatever ... they are allowed to simply forget about it ; it's still THEIR RESPONSIBILITY .

more than one U.S. general spoke out about the required U.S. troop strength to both win the war and provide security .
if i recall correctly , they were told by secretary rumsfeld that such troopstrength was not necessary for such an objective to be achieved .
i think we all know what happened next , don't we ?

can the U.S. now claim that , since it's become rather difficult and expensive to provide such security , they are no longer obliged to provide it ?
i don't believe so
hbg

They are not dead by American hands are they? How many more will die if we run away? Get out your crystal ball and let us know, will ya?

A third of Iraqis, thanks to the war, are either dead, maimed, or forced from their homes. I don't see a lot of right-wingers talking about this fact.

They don't talk about it, b/c they don't care about Iraqi lives, and everyone knows it. They care about losing. So save your crocodile tears, mcg. Nobody's buying it.

Cycloptichorn

McGentrix wrote:

They are not dead by American hands are they? How many more will die if we run away? Get out your crystal ball and let us know, will ya?

Some of them were. How many lives will be saved if we stay vs. how many lives will be lost if we go? Get out your crysal ball and let us know, will ya?

Should we significantly increase the number of our troops in Iraq to help do a better job of protecting the Iraqi people? I say YES!

Should we demand that Democrats as well as Republicans support a significant increase in the number of our troops in Iraq? I say YES!

ican711nm wrote:

Should we significantly increase the number of our troops in Iraq to help do a better job of protecting the Iraqi people? I say YES!

Should we demand that Democrats as well as Republicans support a significant increase in the number of our troops in Iraq? I say YES!

And where would these troops come from? Would you have any problem, given the severity of the situation, with reviving the draft so that all of those kids in college could do their part? Is the situation that serious that we would want to put them at risk?

We can pursue our core interests in Iraq--ensuring that the country does not become a terrorist base and that it does not destabilize the rest of the region--without a large occupying force. To do this, we should announce our intention to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq beginning in December and concluding with the withdrawal of all major ground combat units within 18 months; declare that the United States seeks no permanent military bases in Iraq; gain permission from Kuwait to station additional combat units there to create an "over the horizon" capability to deal with terrorists in Iraq; accelerate the training and equipping of the Iraqi army with embedded Special Forces; work with our regional allies to create an enhanced covert action capacity to combat Iraq-based terrorism; speed up U.S. reconstruction efforts; and convene a regional process to guarantee the stability of Iraq, inviting Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and the Gulf countries to join.

WASHINGTON - The Army's top officer, General George Casey, told Congress yesterday that his branch of the military has been stretched so thin by the war in Iraq that it can not adequately respond to another conflict - one of the strongest warnings yet from a military leader that repeated deployments to war zones in the Middle East have hamstrung the military's ability to deter future aggression.

In his first appearance as Army chief of staff, Casey told the House Armed Services Committee that the Army is "out of balance" and "the current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."

Officials said Casey, who appeared along with Army Secretary Pete Geren, personally requested the public hearing - a highly unusual move that military analysts said underscores his growing concern about the health of the Army, America's primary fighting force.

...

Quote:

Admit It's Over by Richard A. Clarke

Quote:

We can pursue our core interests in Iraq--ensuring that the country does not become a terrorist base and that it does not destabilize the rest of the region--without a large occupying force. To do this, we should announce our intention to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq beginning in December and concluding with the withdrawal of all major ground combat units within 18 months; declare that the United States seeks no permanent military bases in Iraq; gain permission from Kuwait to station additional combat units there to create an "over the horizon" capability to deal with terrorists in Iraq; accelerate the training and equipping of the Iraqi army with embedded Special Forces; work with our regional allies to create an enhanced covert action capacity to combat Iraq-based terrorism; speed up U.S. reconstruction efforts; and convene a regional process to guarantee the stability of Iraq, inviting Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and the Gulf countries to join.

...

The underlined statements are platitudes about desireable objectives, absent any specification of rational methods for accomplish them, other than the methods we are currently using:
work with our regional allies to create an enhanced covert action capacity to combat Iraq-based terrorism
speed up U.S. reconstruction efforts
convene a regional process to guarantee the stability of Iraq

I've got zero patience with those alleged experts who speak nothing but platitudes, euphemisms, slogans, bromides, and cliches about what to accomplish without discussing rational plans for how to actually accomplish it.

revel wrote:

...

Quote:

Admit It's Over by Richard A. Clarke

Quote:

We can pursue our core interests in Iraq--ensuring that the country does not become a terrorist base and that it does not destabilize the rest of the region--without a large occupying force. To do this, we should announce our intention to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq beginning in December and concluding with the withdrawal of all major ground combat units within 18 months; declare that the United States seeks no permanent military bases in Iraq; gain permission from Kuwait to station additional combat units there to create an "over the horizon" capability to deal with terrorists in Iraq; accelerate the training and equipping of the Iraqi army with embedded Special Forces; work with our regional allies to create an enhanced covert action capacity to combat Iraq-based terrorism; speed up U.S. reconstruction efforts; and convene a regional process to guarantee the stability of Iraq, inviting Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and the Gulf countries to join.

...

The underlined statements are platitudes about desireable objectives, absent any specification of rational methods for accomplish them, other than the methods we are currently using:
work with our regional allies to create an enhanced covert action capacity to combat Iraq-based terrorism
speed up U.S. reconstruction efforts
convene a regional process to guarantee the stability of Iraq

I've got zero patience with those alleged experts who speak nothing but platitudes, euphemisms, slogans, bromides, and cliches about what to accomplish without discussing rational plans for how to actually accomplish it.

For some reason I couldn't go back to the article in full. Be that as it may.

We have not announced that we are not seeking permanent bases. Nor have we been willing to work with regional allies like Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey to help with reconstuction efforts and security along with just special forces of the US (not a whole military). We have not been willing to let it get out of our hands.

I think he is right (along with Murtha who says about the same thing) that we need to retreat to the side lines in surrounding areas and involve other nations without the US being in control. It is in the best interest of the surrounding nations to help Iraq and maybe if we were not in control of it all they would.

...
We have not announced that we are not seeking permanent bases. Nor have we been willing to work with regional allies like Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey to help with reconstuction efforts and security along with just special forces of the US (not a whole military). We have not been willing to let it get out of our hands.

I think he is right (along with Murtha who says about the same thing) that we need to retreat to the side lines in surrounding areas and involve other nations without the US being in control. It is in the best interest of the surrounding nations to help Iraq and maybe if we were not in control of it all they would.