9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 04:33 pm
hope you all enjoy your VEGGIE DOGS Shocked :wink: Exclamation

Quote:


somebody hand me a MEATLESS hotdog , please (just kidding) .
hbg


VEGGIE DOGS
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:23 pm
ican wrote :
Quote:
If we leave before the Iraqis can adequately defend themselves, far greater numbers of Iraqi non-murderers will be massed murdered daily than are mass murdered now.


i have a few points to make :
- how many american lives should the united states citizens be prepared to lose in a continuing war ? is there a limit at all ?

- the united states forces lost 50,000 + soldiers in vietnam ; should the united states have continued the war even if that meant losing even more soldiers ?

- i understand that you don't think very highly of "diplomatic relations "
(and i readily admit that i'm not always fully in agreement with what our governments are doing in "diplomatic relations " . i have to admit also however that i know that we are living in an imperfect world . what MAY look black and white to me , may be shades of grey for someone else .)
anyhow , nations do have to try and get along with each other , so with what should "diplomatic relations" be replaced ?
i see no alternative .

- is it not better for the united states and vietnam to have ended the war and now have "diplomatic relations" , rather than to have continued the war ?

- and getting back to iraq : why is no real effort being made to call together all the nations of the region to try and help in bringing at least some stability(forget peace and democracy for the time being) to iraq and the region ?
it is my understanding that there is now a real danger of the iraq instability spreading in to other countries in the middle-east ; surely that would not be to the benefit of ANY nation ? (or is it ?)

- as for the "different strategy adopted by the united states " , it seems to be the same policy of waging war - no change there .

- how much time should the "different strategy" be given to show that it will bring increased stability ?
(thousands of iraqis have already fled the country , many more have left their homes trying to find refuge in other parts of the country .
imo the four years of war have not brought any stability to the iraqis ... and more american soldiers are dying every day ).

another 2 cents worth .
hbg


ps . and in the meantime the situation in afghanistan does not seem to show much improvement either . i will update my thread on afghanistan shortly , even though there does not seem to much interest in that subject.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:26 pm
We're losing the war in Iraq, so Bush is ready to start another war with Iran.

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

USS John C Stennis is being deployed to the Persian Gulf
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Deadline

Earlier this month US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.

Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 08:00 pm
hamburger wrote:
ican wrote :
Quote:
If we leave before the Iraqis can adequately defend themselves, far greater numbers of Iraqi non-murderers will be massed murdered daily than are mass murdered now.


i have a few points to make :
- how many american lives should the united states citizens be prepared to lose in a continuing war ? is there a limit at all ?

I'll answer with a counter question. How many American lives should United States citizens be prepared to lose after discontinuing the war? Is there any limit at all?

If America discontinues its participation in the Iraq war after the Iraqis are able to protect themselves and prevent al-Qaeda from re-establishing their training camps in Iraq, then United States citizens would be prepared to lose far fewer American lives than if America discontinues its participation in the Iraq war before the Iraqis are able to protect themselves and prevent al-Qaeda from re-establishing their training camps in Iraq.


- the united states forces lost 50,000 + soldiers in vietnam ; should the united states have continued the war even if that meant losing even more soldiers ?

Yes! The United States had decisively won the Tet offensive and killed thousands of Vietcong and their North Vietnamese allies. The enemy was crippled. Nonetheless, we left because Congress defunded the war incorrectly thinking we had lost.

- i understand that you don't think very highly of "diplomatic relations "
(and i readily admit that i'm not always fully in agreement with what our governments are doing in "diplomatic relations " . i have to admit also however that i know that we are living in an imperfect world . what MAY look black and white to me , may be shades of grey for someone else .)
anyhow , nations do have to try and get along with each other , so with what should "diplomatic relations" be replaced ?
i see no alternative.

Establishing and nurturing diplomatic relations works well with even those who strongly disagree with us. Such relations don't work worth a damn with those agressors committed to defeating us. Whatever we agree to give them in return for non-agression, will be perceived by such agressors as evidence of our weakness and susceptability to being extorted more.

- is it not better for the united states and vietnam to have ended the war and now have "diplomatic relations" , rather than to have continued the war ?

It depends on who you ask. I doubt that the relatives of the 3 million murdered in Southeast Asia after the US pulled out would think it worth the death of those they loved for the sake of establishing diplomatic relations.

It is important to remember that the North Vietnamese wanted only to conquer South Vietnam, while the al-Qaeda suicidal mass murderers want to conquer the world and establish their world Caliphate.


- and getting back to iraq : why is no real effort being made to call together all the nations of the region to try and help in bringing at least some stability(forget peace and democracy for the time being) to iraq and the region ?
it is my understanding that there is now a real danger of the iraq instability spreading in to other countries in the middle-east ; surely that would not be to the benefit of ANY nation ? (or is it ?)

I don't believe there is no such effort being made. The problem is it has yet to succeed.

- as for the "different strategy adopted by the united states " , it seems to be the same policy of waging war - no change there .

The different strategy I was referring to was a different military strategy. Previously we had focused on training and defending Iraqi non-murderers. Now we are focused on attacking and killing the mass murderers of Iraqi non-murderers to drastically reduce their population and their effectiveness in murdering Iraqi non-murderers.

- how much time should the "different strategy" be given to show that it will bring increased stability ?
(thousands of iraqis have already fled the country , many more have left their homes trying to find refuge in other parts of the country.

Until we come up with a more effective strategy to bring increased stability.

Failure to bring increased stability cannot be tolerated. Such failure will prove far more deadly than what we have experienced to date.


imo the four years of war have not brought any stability to the iraqis ... and more american soldiers are dying every day ).

From 01/01/99 until 12/31/02 about 103,000 Iraqi non-killers were mass murdered. From 01/01/03 until 12/31/06 about 61,000 Iraqi non-killers were mass murdered. That's some improvement!
...
hbg


ps . and in the meantime the situation in afghanistan does not seem to show much improvement either . i will update my thread on afghanistan shortly , even though there does not seem to much interest in that subject.

What do you think was true in Afghanistan before we invaded Afghanistan 10/6/2001? What do you think is true there now?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 08:08 pm
Munich Memories: Has anything been learned over the past 69 years?
By Clifford D. May
National Review on Line

"Our enemies are little worms. I saw them at Munich."

That was Hitler's appraisal of the leaders of Britain and France he hosted in the Bavarian capital in 1938. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had requested the meeting "to find a peaceful solution" to growing tension over Nazi Germany's grievances and demands.

The outcome: an attempt to appease Hitler through the betrayal of Czechoslovakia. "Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor," Winston Churchill remarked at the time. "They chose dishonor. They will have war."

In 1972, Munich again was linked to appeasement: Palestinian terrorists massacred 11 Israeli Olympic athletes. The group responsible was guided by Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat. Nevertheless, Arafat received more encouragement than condemnation: He was invited to address the U.N. where "the question of Palestine" rose to the top of the agenda; it has remained there ever since with no resolution in sight.

Against this backdrop, last weekend I attended the 43rd annual Munich Conference on Security Policy, a gathering of the international political elite: presidents and prime ministers, defense and foreign secretaries, ambassadors, scholars, and journalists from more than 40 countries.

The conference was opened by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. She surveyed a minefield of world crises but proposed little in the way of strategies to resolve them, other than "Peace through Dialogue" — the conference's slogan prominently displayed in German and English behind her on the stage.

Senator Joseph Lieberman asked Merkel if there was not a "global moral responsibility to stop the genocide" of black Muslims in Sudan. She agreed there was, but added that before action could be contemplated "the African Union has to make clear what it thinks."

Russia's Vladimir Putin was the next world leader to take the microphone. He launched into a venomous attack on America, charging that because of Washington "nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law,"

The possibility that international law is not meant to conceal despots was not raised with him. However, Rep. Jane Harman did ask Putin to explain why he was selling nuclear technology and sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems to the regime in Tehran. "We don't want Iran to feel cornered in a hostile region," the Russian president said dismissively.

Only seven weeks into his new job, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates decided not to respond to Putin in kind. Instead, he remarked that the former KGB officer's words "almost filled me with nostalgia for a less complex time. Almost. … One Cold War was quite enough."

Finally, there was Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, playing the role of the indignant revolutionary deigning to address the benighted emissaries of a dying order. "What is important," he sternly instructed, "is that the world undergoes fundamental changes."

Cunningly, he appealed for multicultural tolerance: "In the West you have adopted secularism as the basis of democracy. Our democracy is based on Islamic thoughts." Assuming the mantle of victim, he complained that "in the West, the defamation of the Prophet of Islam is being supported."

As for Iran's nuclear program, he insisted it is intended only to generate electricity. "We have no intention of aggression against any country,'' he said, sounding offended by the very thought. He added that, on the contrary, "We are a victim of terrorism." At whose hands, he did not specify.

Larijani sternly set down the rules for those wishing to question him: He was not to be asked about "suspension of uranium enrichment, the Holocaust or Israel."

Perhaps the sharpest rejoinder came from Sen. Lindsey Graham. "It must have been difficult for you to say what you said," he told the Iranian official. "Because it was difficult for me to listen."

Graham observed: "No one who denies the Holocaust can be trusted with nuclear materials." And he advised Larijani to "Go visit Dachau," the Nazi concentration camp preserved as a memorial in Munich's bucolic suburbs; an unintended consequence of the policy of appeasement.

In contrast with Graham and other members of the American delegation — which included also Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl — few European leaders seemed distressed by Larijani. If anything, they congratulated themselves for having invited him to Munich to begin a process of "peace though dialogue."

As for what Larijani and his fellow Islamist revolutionaries think of their European hosts, one can only surmise. But I suspect it is not too far from the Führer's appraisal of those he humiliated in Munich nearly 70 years ago.

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 08:19 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
We're losing the war in Iraq, so Bush is ready to start another war with Iran.

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

USS John C Stennis is being deployed to the Persian Gulf
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.
...


IRAN'S IRAQ STRATEGY
What Tehran Is Really Up To
By Daniel L. Byman
Washington Post
Sunday, February 18, 2007; Page B01

Reports that Iran is arming various factions in Iraq are about as surprising as claims that Mafia members have been seen in Las Vegas casinos. Iran has been meddling in its neighbors' affairs for a long time, and not just in Iraq. Teheran has trained terrorist and guerrilla groups in Bosnia, Lebanon and Palestine, all of which are far from Iran.

So when U.S. military officials displayed explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that they say Iran provided to Shiite militias in Iraq, we have to recognize that this was no big departure for the Iranians.

As President Bush and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged last week, finding Iranian arms in Iraq does not prove the more important, and harder to make, argument that Iran is ordering its Iraqi proxies to attack U.S. troops. It may seem absurd to give Iran the benefit of the doubt, in light of its sorry track record on nuclear proliferation and support for radicalism in general, but we can't understand what Iran is up to without an appreciation for its broader Iraq strategy, which goes well beyond Tehran's desire to undermine U.S. policy. Iranian leaders calculate that they will need formidable proxies should the United States leave, and indeed Iran will face many challenges in Iraq if U.S. forces depart.

So why would Iran arm Iraqis and perhaps direct attacks on U.S. forces? For most Iranians, Iraq is an emotional issue. They see the daily suffering of Iraqis, both from the chaos in Iraq in general and at the hands of Sunni suicide bombers. They empathize with their fellow Shiites in Iraq, with whom they have historic ties and shared religious traditions. Though they rejoice over the downfall of Saddam Hussein (Iran suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties in the bitter war of 1980-88, which Hussein launched against it) they blame the United States for the violence that has swept Iraq since Hussein fell.

Iran worries about the United States. When Ayatollah Khomeini took power in the 1979 Islamic revolution, he made anti-Americanism a core of the new regime's foreign policy. The United States has been hostile ever since, even tilting toward Iraq during its war with Iran. The United States and Iran have not had diplomatic relations since 1979, and have periodically confronted each other.

In the decade before 9/11, Iran structured its military forces to fight America, even when the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf region was confined to the conservative oil states of the Arabian peninsula. Since 9/11, the United States has occupied Iraq with more than 100,000 troops, put significant forces in Afghanistan and Central Asia, and strengthened its security relationship with Pakistan. Iran perceives itself as surrounded. The United States has repeatedly made threats against the Iranian regime, has refused to surrender anti-regime Iranian terrorists found in Iraq, organized international economic pressure on the country, led a diplomatic effort to deny Iran the right to develop nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, and pointedly included military force against Iran as an option after dispatching two aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf region-- hostile steps, in Iranian eyes, that reinforce paranoia.

Tehran does not want the secular and pro-Western Iraq that America dreams of, and it wants to ensure that the U.S. doctrine of preventive regime change is dead. So far, developments in Iraq have worked out in Iran's favor -- indeed, Iran appears to be the one state that is winning this war. Iraq is too weak to pose a military threat to Iran for years and perhaps decades to come. The democratic procedures that the United States imposed on Iraq put in power Shiite leaders who are far friendlier to Tehran than to Washington.

Iran is less nervous than it was in 2003, but it remains understandably anxious. The long-term role of U.S. forces and the future of the Shiite regime in Iraq are open questions. Instability in Iraq could lead to waves of refugees returning to Iran, as happened during the Iran-Iraq war, and could excite unrest among Iran's Kurdish and Arab populations. Expecting an American withdrawal sooner or later, Iran wants to prepare for a postwar era by maximizing its influence now.

The United States focuses on how Iran's arming of its Iraqi proxies hurts U.S. interests, but this is hardly Iran's only concern. The Iraqi Shiite groups that have received arms may be more loyal to Iran after American forces depart. Even more important, they will be stronger than their Iraqi rivals. In Lebanon, Iran helped build Hezbollah from disparate small Shiite movements, welding it together against rivals in the Shiite community and, over time, making it stronger than non-Shiite groups. The goal is the same in Iraq.

Many Iranian leaders, particularly the president and the emerging conservative political elite, are profoundly anti-American. They want the United States to fail in Iraq and elsewhere, and they share an ideological bond with many radical Iraqi groups. So it is not surprising that Iran works with its closest Shiite proxies in Iraq, providing them with EFPs and other weapons that make them far more capable of fighting U.S. forces. Other Iranian elites have more complex feelings about the United States, though none is favorable, and Iranians want to bury the doctrine of regime change. Even if Iranians do not control the attacks, Iran knows that some of the people it trains and equips may at some point be involved in anti-American operations, thus keeping the heat on U.S. forces.

But Iran could easily be even more aggressive in Iraq. Tehran could provide sophisticated weapons to a wider range of Iraqi groups than it reportedly has so far. Iran's Shiite proxies do at times attack American forces, but their principal targets are Sunni militias. They could kill a lot more Americans than they have. Iran could be encouraging them to convert relatively peaceful parts of Iraq into battlefields similar to the wildest parts of Anbar province.

Iraq's Shiites are not Iran's only interest. Tehran also has a long history of working with (and also against) various Kurdish groups. Iran recognizes theIraqi Kurds as the strongest and most organized military force in the country, and has cultivated good relations with Kurdish leaders. Iran has its own restive Kurdish population, and wants to ensure that its Kurds don't use bases in Iraq or otherwise exploit the conflict to advance their own sectarian interests.

Iran also has a history of cultivating Sunnis when doing so seemed advantageous. It has reached out to a range of revolutionary Sunni groups and has good ties to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other organizations whose ideology is closer to Osama Bin Laden's than to Khomeini's. The 9/11 commission found that Iran had engaged in low-level tactical cooperation with Sunni militants linked to al-Qaeda. And Tehran can be intensely practical. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran worked with Israel and the United States to gain much-needed weapons. Dealing with the Sunnis may follow a similar logic, though mutual suspicion will limit the extent of relations.

Ironically, Iran's long-term position could weaken when the United States draws down its forces. At first, the U.S. withdrawal will expand the power vacuum and Iran will try to fill it, but the limited chaos Iran foments can easily become uncontrolled. Iran's economic and military power is limited, and Iran's theocratic model of governance has little appeal for most Iraqis. Even many Shiite militants have at times been hostile to Iran, and respected moderates such as Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani are careful to maintain their distance from Tehran. Sunnis already rage against perceived Iranian dominance.

In a postwar environment, Tehran will have lost a lever against U.S. pressure and may find itself both overextended and vulnerable in Iraq -- a weakness that the United States might exploit in years to come.

[email protected]

Daniel L. Byman is director of Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Feb, 2007 08:04 am
Car bombs kill 11 across Baghdad

Quote:


Notice who have been getting hit the hardest since this "surge" began, it is the Shiites. I am beginning to think this surge is all about containing Iranian influence in Iraq; cause it sure isn't affecting the Sunni insurgents violence.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Feb, 2007 12:06 pm
Bush and the generals fail to see the obvious; anything we do in Iraq will be "temporary." Iran and the Shiites will just go underground for a short while until the surge returns home. It makes one wonder where their brains are settled; it's not in their heads.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Feb, 2007 02:21 pm
From the NYT:

February 20, 2007
More Iraq Attacks Day After Raid
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Feb, 2007 02:31 pm
Arab newswire: Sadr's office stormed by coalition forces RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday February 20, 2007

An Arab news agency is claiming that the Baghdad offices of Shi'a political leader Muqtada al-Sadr was just raided by US military and Iraqi security forces.

The Kuwaiti News Agency reports that "some 14 military vehicles are now surrounding the office and Iraqi and US soldiers could be seen confiscating material and documents."

Al Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army, a leading Shi'a militia in Iraq, is said to be currently out of the country due to concerns for his security.

DEVELOPING ...

The full news story can be ready at the KUNA website.
http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/Arab_newswire_Sadrs_office_stormed_by_0220.html
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Feb, 2007 12:00 am
http://i19.tinypic.com/2ym7ol1.jpg

Quote:
Iraq: the British endgame

· 1,000 troops out by May, all gone by end of 2008
· Pace of pullout much slower than anticipated



Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday February 21, 2007
The Guardian


All British troops will be pulled out of Iraq by the end of 2008, starting with the withdrawal of 1,000 in the early summer, the Guardian has learned.
Tony Blair is to announce the moves - the result of months of intense debate in Whitehall - within 24 hours, possibly later today, according to officials.

The prime minister is expected to say that Britain intends to gradually reduce the number of troops in southern Iraq over the next 22 months as Iraqi forces take on more responsibility for the security of Basra and the surrounding areas.

... ... ...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Feb, 2007 07:51 am
What a let down, I was wondering what an immediate pull out would look like and hoping if it went smooth, we would follow next.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Feb, 2007 11:41 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:

... Iraq: the British endgame

Quote:
· 1,000 troops out by May, all gone by end of 2008
· Pace of pullout much slower than anticipated


Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday February 21, 2007
The Guardian

All British troops will be pulled out of Iraq by the end of 2008, starting with the withdrawal of 1,000 in the early summer, the Guardian has learned.

Tony Blair is to announce the moves - the result of months of intense debate in Whitehall - within 24 hours, possibly later today, according to officials.

The prime minister is expected to say that Britain intends to gradually reduce the number of troops in southern Iraq over the next 22 months as Iraqi forces take on more responsibility for the security of Basra and the surrounding areas.

... ... ...


"... Britain intends to gradually reduce the number of troops in southern Iraq over the next 22 months as Iraqi forces take on more responsibility for the security of Basra and the surrounding areas".

revel wrote:
What a let down, ...


What a let down Question Shocked

Oh, I forgot! You, revel, are rooting for us to lose in Iraq--not win.

Clearly, pulling out "as Iraqi forces take on more responsibility for the security of Basra and the surrounding areas" is a win.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Feb, 2007 11:42 am
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002606.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/maliki.jpg

Quote:
Today's Must Read
By Paul Kiel - February 21, 2007, 9:12 AM

For those of you who might have wondered about the wisdom of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki....

On Monday, a 20 year-old Sunni woman went on Al Jazeera to say that she had been raped at the hand of three Iraqi policeman the previous day (the police force is overwhelmingly Shiite). The incredibly rare spectacle in Iraq of a woman publicly and graphically describing her rape immediately turned the case into a major scandal. (The New York Times does a very good job of telling the story.)

The woman said the Americans rescued her and gave her medical treatment. She was, according to the U.S. military, admitted to Ibn Sina Hospital, which the U.S. runs. A nurse who treated her at a clinic for Sunnis (it's unclear to me if this was before or after her visit to the hospital), interviewed by the Times, "said that she saw signs of sexual and physical assault."

The U.S. military would only say that they're investigating the case. Maliki was not so circumspect.

After initially issuing a statement promising a full investigation, Maliki suddenly issued a second statement a few hours later, declaring that the woman was a liar and a wanted criminal, and that the three officers were to be rewarded:

"It has been shown after medical examinations that the woman had not been subjected to any sexual attack whatsoever, and that there are three outstanding arrest warrants against her issued by security agencies.... After the allegations have been proven to be false, the prime minister has ordered that the officers accused be rewarded."

Now, I've never run a country riven by sectarian tensions. But I'd say that's not the best way to handle the situation.

Maliki has continued his rampage, firing, or attempting to fire, the head of the agency that tends to Sunni mosques and shrines in Iraq because he called for an international investigation into the rape allegations. The problem with that, apparently, is that he doesn't have the authority to fire him... or at least so the Sunni official says.

This is the man who holds the U.S.'s fate in Iraq in his hands.


I've said many times - lack of confidence in the leadership has caused more than half of the problems in this war.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Feb, 2007 11:47 am
Cyclo, That one incident tells us where Maliki's head is; wrong in every way to find a solution to their problems.

Our involvement only exacerbates the problems in Iraq.

With the Brits pulling out by 2008, I just wonder how many more of our men and women in the military we will sacrifice for a lost cause?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Feb, 2007 12:09 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
I've said many times - lack of confidence in the leadership has caused more than half of the problems in this war.

Cycloptichorn

No! Lack of confidence in the leadership of this war has caused only 49.9% of the problems in this war. The remaining 50.1% are caused by western leftists who prefer Hussein's tyrannical rule over the Iraqi people to Maliki's bungling rule.

Western, leftist bigotry against the 27 million Iraqi people causes their preference. They look at that entire population of Iraqis and perceive almost all to be dedicated to the mass murderer of those non-murderers with whom they disagree. How many of those mass murders are actually committed by Iraqis. How many Iraqi mass murderers are there? I bet less than 27 hundred.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Feb, 2007 12:16 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
I've said many times - lack of confidence in the leadership has caused more than half of the problems in this war.

Cycloptichorn

No! Lack of confidence in the leadership of this war has caused only 49.9% of the problems in this war. The remaining 50.1% are caused by western leftists who prefer Hussein's tyrannical rule over the Iraqi people to Maliki's bungling rule.

Western, leftist bigotry against the 27 million Iraqi people causes their preference. They look at that entire population of Iraqis and perceive almost all to be dedicated to the mass murderer of those non-murderers with whom they disagree. How many of those mass murders are actually committed by Iraqis. How many Iraqi mass murderers are there? I bet less than 27 hundred.


Pretty stupid thing to write here, but you've really been slipping lately. It isn't surprising; the center of your argument becomes harder to hold together as time goes on.

How you could imagine that those who have unsuccessfully prosecuted the war - the Administration and DoD - bear less responsibility for our failures there than Leftists who aren't happy with the war at all, is ridiculous and unsupportable by fact.

I can prove to you that Bushco's mistakes have lead to our problems in Iraq; you on the other hand have zero proof for your assertion that those who criticize the war have caused a majority of the problems.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Feb, 2007 12:19 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Cyclo, That one incident tells us where Maliki's head is; wrong in every way to find a solution to their problems.

Our involvement only exacerbates the problems in Iraq.

With the Brits pulling out by 2008, I just wonder how many more of our men and women in the military we will sacrifice for a lost cause?


LISTEN UP! "... Britain intends to gradually reduce the number of troops in southern Iraq over the next 22 months as Iraqi forces take on more responsibility for the security of Basra and the surrounding areas."

Our lack of involvement would only exacerbate the problems in Iraq far more.

Cice, your repeated false claim that our presence exacerbates the problems in Iraq marks you a persistent willing victim or a persistent eager promoter of Soros's lying propaganda.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Feb, 2007 12:20 pm
Quote:

Our lack of involvement would only exacerbate the problems in Iraq far more.


Sorry, but you've been wrong about everything else having to do with this war; why should anyone believe you?

I'd like for you to outline good reasons why you believe you have any credibility left to make such assertions.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Feb, 2007 12:39 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:

... Iraq: the British endgame

Quote:
· 1,000 troops out by May, all gone by end of 2008
· Pace of pullout much slower than anticipated


Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday February 21, 2007
The Guardian

All British troops will be pulled out of Iraq by the end of 2008, starting with the withdrawal of 1,000 in the early summer, the Guardian has learned.

Tony Blair is to announce the moves - the result of months of intense debate in Whitehall - within 24 hours, possibly later today, according to officials.

The prime minister is expected to say that Britain intends to gradually reduce the number of troops in southern Iraq over the next 22 months as Iraqi forces take on more responsibility for the security of Basra and the surrounding areas.

... ... ...


"... Britain intends to gradually reduce the number of troops in southern Iraq over the next 22 months as Iraqi forces take on more responsibility for the security of Basra and the surrounding areas".

revel wrote:
What a let down, ...


What a let down Question Shocked

Oh, I forgot! You, revel, are rooting for us to lose in Iraq--not win.

Clearly, pulling out "as Iraqi forces take on more responsibility for the security of Basra and the surrounding areas" is a win.


As far as I am aware nothing has basically changed since the last time Blair said it was the wrong time to leave. I doubt anything will change too much for better in 2008, so why not now? We could be there for ten more years and still not "win."
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 0.06 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 10:26:05