9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2008 05:55 pm
ican711nm wrote:


Yes, start bringing our troops home now!

Remove all our troops by the end of the year, if the daily rate of violent deaths in Iraq remains less than 30, while we are removing our troops.


You set the goalposts, Ican, at the 30 yard mark. And we have now, according to your sources, gotten there. And you haven't equivocated. We met your standard. We have won. And now it is time to bring the troops home.
I am not being cynical, Ican. You, someone who follows this, set a target and now that target seems to have been met and you can join some of the rest of us calling for this before.

I fear, though, that we will end up being in Iraq and Afghan for years. And in the last couple of days a dozen U.S. soldiers have been killed along, probably, with the daily average of civilians.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 07:07 am
US soldiers accidentally kill Iraqi child

8 dead in Baghdad car bomb blast

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Iraq

War strains U.S. military in tackling new crises

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-02-19-casey_N.htm

All in all we are boxed into a no win situation with this war which was waged foolhardily and unjustly from the very formation.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 03:48 pm
Pentagon doing it's propagandist best at controlling information...

Quote:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/30172.html
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 04:25 pm
Wonder what good that will do? All reporters have to do is post it on the internet themselves after requesting the document.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 04:44 pm
NPR this morning had a long story on the 2000 page report. The key point, in my mind, is the phrase about not "...making officials available to discuss it, as has been planned..."
"Officials" (whoever they are) need time to regroup and agree on a response,
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 08:00 pm
Why the buildup in Iraq was never meant to work.


Spike in violence follows troop withdrawal They said as the Iraq forces begin to take over, we can begin to stand down. What happened to this military strategy? They probably didn't know what they ware talking about from about five years ago.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2008 08:01 pm
realjohnboy wrote:
ican711nm wrote:


Yes, start bringing our troops home now!

Remove all our troops by the end of the year, if the daily rate of violent deaths in Iraq remains less than 30, while we are removing our troops.


...

I fear, though, that we will end up being in Iraq and Afghan for years. And in the last couple of days a dozen U.S. soldiers have been killed along, probably, with the daily average of civilians.

I think your fear may be justified. However, if AQ were to stop mass murdering Iraqi non-murderers, and turns its attention exclusively to trying to kill US military, the US will pull out of Iraq ASAP. AQ would be stupider than I imagine them to be if they now do not do this.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 09:23 am
Ican; AQ in Iraq has never been the only or biggest authors of violence in Iraq. It has just become a Bush propaganda tactic to name all violence AQ and most journalist just report as such like blind sheep. There has always been fighting between Sunnis, Shiite and Kurds and even fighting within those groups and sometimes those groups fighting US troops or Iraqi troops or Iraqi police. Sunni insurgents have turned against the foreign AQ in Iraq which makes AQI even smaller but they still fight other Iraqis and might even use some of the tactics of AQ but they are not all AQ. A failure to realize that there are other problems in Iraq besides AQ will lead a person to think that once AQ has been beaten down in Iraq (I believe they have been except in small places) all the other violence will disappear and that is not the case. It seems like they have just biding their time until we let up on the surge because they have not worked out their differences which would lead to real lasting security gains.

Quote:
Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQ-I).33 A numerically small but politically significant
component of the insurgency is non-Iraqi, mostly in a faction called Al Qaeda-Iraq
(AQ-I). Increasingly in 2007, U.S. commanders have seemed to equate AQ-I with
the insurgency, even though most of the daily attacks are carried out by Iraqi Sunni
insurgents.


source
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 10:16 am
revel wrote:
Ican; AQ in Iraq has never been the only or biggest authors of violence in Iraq. It has just become a Bush propaganda tactic to name all violence AQ and most journalist just report as such like blind sheep. There has always been fighting between Sunnis, Shiite and Kurds and even fighting within those groups and sometimes those groups fighting US troops or Iraqi troops or Iraqi police. Sunni insurgents have turned against the foreign AQ in Iraq which makes AQI even smaller but they still fight other Iraqis and might even use some of the tactics of AQ but they are not all AQ. A failure to realize that there are other problems in Iraq besides AQ will lead a person to think that once AQ has been beaten down in Iraq (I believe they have been except in small places) all the other violence will disappear and that is not the case. It seems like they have just biding their time until we let up on the surge because they have not worked out their differences which would lead to real lasting security gains.

Quote:
Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQ-I).33 A numerically small but politically significant
component of the insurgency is non-Iraqi, mostly in a faction called Al Qaeda-Iraq
(AQ-I). Increasingly in 2007, U.S. commanders have seemed to equate AQ-I with
the insurgency, even though most of the daily attacks are carried out by Iraqi Sunni
insurgents.


source


It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the various tribes in Iraq has always been at war - for over a thousand years - and we witnessed this during the past five years since our invasion to "bring democracy to the Middle East." What Bush accomplished was to get outsiders involved in their internal problems, and even exacerbated their problem by the intrusion by al Qaida. Stupid ideas no matter how well intentioned will not succeed when people forget the long term and contemporary history of the country. But, what can we expect from a dunce who doesn't even speak the English language properly, and who was appointed as commander in chief? He started firing all the good advisors that conflicted with his own goals. Look at the monster Bush created in just five years? Bush's economic plans and war plans have all been dismal failures.

Bush will be speaking about the economy at 11:15 this morning. Have a good laugh, because what he says has no basis in reality.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 10:45 am
This Blog has a good take on some of the issues in Iraq.

[i got to get off been on the internet way too long this morning and wasting time; so if you see me posting any more, please remind me Smile ]
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 11:06 am
The Bush Doctrine: Force our form of democracy down their throats, while ignoring the wishes of the Iraqis, and hope it succeeds. McCain's statement that we might be in Iraq for another 100 years is probably closer to the truth than fiction, since McCain is Bush's disciple.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 11:42 am
Quote:
The Bush Doctrine: Force our Bush form of democracy down their throats


FTFY Cool
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 11:46 am
BillW wrote:
Quote:
The Bush Doctrine: Force our Bush form of democracy down their throats


FTFY Cool


I like your editing of my statement. Wink
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 11:47 am
You know me CI, I strive for accuracy Razz
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 11:47 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
McCain's statement that we might be in Iraq for another 100 years is probably closer to the truth than fiction, since McCain is Bush's disciple.


And why does that statement bother you?
We have been in Germany and Japan for 60 years and in Korea for 50 years.

Why arent you objecting to that?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 11:49 am
Some people will never understand history or apply that history to current events - corrrectly..
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 11:53 am
mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
McCain's statement that we might be in Iraq for another 100 years is probably closer to the truth than fiction, since McCain is Bush's disciple.


And why does that statement bother you?
We have been in Germany and Japan for 60 years and in Korea for 50 years.

Why arent you objecting to that?


I objected to that in 1980 (and, this probably wasn't the first time), every time I make a statement do I have to list all my prior objections, tsk, tsk!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 01:30 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Some people will never understand history or apply that history to current events - corrrectly..


We know C.I., but we are trying to help you anyways.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2008 01:37 pm
McGentrix wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Some people will never understand history or apply that history to current events - corrrectly..


We know C.I., but we are trying to help you anyways.


http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mgt/lowres/mgtn51l.jpg

Some haven't changed Confused
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2008 10:09 am
Petraeus: Iraqi Leaders Not Making 'Sufficient Progress'

Quote:
BAGHDAD, March 13 -- Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.

Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.

The general's comments appeared to be his sternest to date on Iraqis' failure to achieve political reconciliation. In February, following the passage of laws on the budget, provincial elections and an amnesty for certain detainees, Petraeus was more encouraging. "The passage of the three laws today showed that the Iraqi leaders are now taking advantage of the opportunity that coalition and Iraqi troopers fought so hard to provide," he said at the time.


On the subject of the comparisons of SK an Germany and Iraq; we did not invade South Korea but stationed our troops after NK invaded SK. With Germany by the time our troops were stationed there there was not any where near the violence and resistance going on like there was/is in Iraq after our invasion. The comparisons are false and misleading but effective I admit.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 10/05/2024 at 02:04:07