And the Iraqi Army is a disaster right now. Both are collaborator armies, both are disasters.
Then they’ll have to be American security forces. The Iraqis are our enemies; mass murder, torture and general devastation tends to do that.
America humiliated and out of Iraq is not the same thing as “Iraq in flames”. If nothing else, because Iraq is “in flames” right now. If anyone wants Iraq in flames, it’s you for supporting this barbaric invasion.
:rolleyes: Iraq is only a terrorist danger because of the invasion. The Republicans are “soft on terrorism”; they are the best allies Osama could imagine.
Only half are against foreign terrorists who kill their own people, and this impresses you ?
Shia collaborators. I expect them to be killed by their fellow Shiites, and replaced by different ones.
No, I mean people who take the job because they need to eat, and are desperate enough to take a job from us.
Most of the Iraqi population wants us dead, or is afraid of being killed ( possibly by their own families ) for working for us. The Iraqis don’t care about Iraq because Iraq is not their country, it’s ours. The ones with patriotic impulses are either in the ethnic militias or killing Americans, not working for them.
In other words, you have no justification for your little noble suffering speech.
So ? Why does that matter ? Why should Iraq survive, against the will of the people who live there ? I do think that both the US and UK should have broken up ( don’t know enough about the Russian Federation to comment ). I’d love it if America wasn’t dragged down by the South. If it was possible I’d prefer my own state to secede.
Sorry for being especially dense, here, but I just want to clarify: May we safely conclude, at this juncture, that, without a stable Iraq, declaring “victory” by contracting to Greenzonia Minor and a heavily-fortified oil infrastructure, whilst war rages outside, is not a realistic strategy, even for the most cynical, as recurrant damage to the oil infrastructure will render the approach untenable?
And, FWIW, I’d be rather disgusted with anyone who claimed the above was a “victory” worth the catastrophe that came with it, but it seems like something our Fearless Leaders would happily run up the flagpole if enough voters bought it.
New plan.; We dig trench around Bagdad(already in line) thereby increasing the Green zone that much more. Then we dig a trench around Fallujah. Etc etc. The Greenzoning or Iraq can be done in 20 or 30 years. Expensive ,but it is finally a plan. I dont know why they didnt let us know.
You’re using the blanket term ‘disaster’ without any proof.
Yawn, again nihilistic sloganeering. Many Iraqis are fighting against the insurgency.
Making sure Iraq has competent security forces to quell any threats to full blown civil war is making sure Iraq doesn’t go down in flames.
Did you read what I just said? If the US withdraws with terror apparatus still in place, then it damages the party further and it’s stance on not being soft on terrorism.
*Sunni tribal leaders who have vowed to drive al-Qaeda out of Iraq’s most restive province met the Shiite prime minister on Wednesday, marking what Washington hopes will be a breakthrough alliance against Islamist militants.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s meeting with sheikhs from Anbar Province – heartland of the Sunni Arab insurgency and the deadliest part of Iraq for US forces – was one bit of reassuring news for the US and the Iraqi government.
Al-Qaeda followers have seized control of towns and villages along the length of the Euphrates valley from Falluja near Baghdad to the Syrian border, and Washington says its 30,000 troops in the province cannot beat them on their own.
But al-Qaeda’s violent ways and severe interpretation of Sunni Islam have alienated traditional-minded Sunnis.
Sattar al-Buzayi, a Sunni sheikh from Anbar Province who has emerged in recent weeks as a leader of a tribal alliance against al-Qaeda, said he and about 15 other sheikhs had offered their cooperation to the Shiite prime minister.
Fellow tribal sheikh, Hameed Farhan, said most tribes supported the agreement. He called for tribesmen to join the army and police and said Maliki promised Iraqi troops for Anbar.
Maliki’s office issued a statement praising the chiefs for their commitment to fighting the militants. It was the first time he had met them since they pledged to fight al-Qaeda in a gathering at Buzayi’s Ramadi home two weeks ago.*
*MacFarland’s brigade is fighting in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, where the insurgency has become so entrenched and feared by residents that the city has no Iraqi mayor. Recently, however, the tide has begun to turn against al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the dominant anti-government force, the colonel said.
“It’s a situation that’s beginning to spiral in our favor,” he said.
MacFarland painted a largely upbeat picture of the battle for Ramadi. He said attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces have dropped from about 20 per day to about 15 per day, and the attacks have become less effective.
Also, recruiting for the Iraqi security forces has “soared 10-fold,” local Sunni tribal leaders have begun cooperating more against the insurgents, and the U.S.-equipped Iraqi police are becoming more effective, he said. *
Even though many of those ‘collaborators’ have militias and are part of the Iraqi government, that includes Sadr.
Plenty of people join the army for reasons other than patriotism, same thing happens even in the US of A and UK. My own father joined the army for money and my uncle went to the Falklands for money, you gonna say he’s not willing to fight because of that?
Irrelevant, I simply stated it’s gonna be tough if the US wants to win against the insurgents, you responded with the usual colourful metaphors and slogans to get a rise out of me and deflect from the current debate.
That’s your opinion, however, many in Iraq with the exception of the Kurds don’t want Iraq to break up, most of all those ‘barefoot peasants’ called the Sunnis, hence why they oppose Federalism.
Well the Serb extremists didn’t want Yugoslavia to break up either, they just wanted all the Croats/Slovenes/Bosnians/Albanians to either die, leave or be subjugated under their control.
Currently Iraq is more of a rat pit than a rat hole.
I’ll be damned if I can see any way we can bring about a better outcome than we’ve already got there right now. I suspect we blew our last chance when the Bushies vetoed significant portions of Maliki’s peace plan a few months back. (Let’s hear it for Iraqi sovereignty. :rolleyes:**) Now the conflict has too much of a life of its own, and is too present everywhere.
If there was something we could do to make things better, we would have long since done it. Magiver asked in post #4, “What war are you comparing this to,” but we don’t need to compare it to any other war: the most sensible comparison is to itself across time. Remember those golden summer days of 2003 when the resistance was just a few “Ba’athist dead-enders”? Whatever we might do now, it sure would have been a lot easier to do it then. But we weren’t able to do it then, despite a much more advantageous position then than now. Nor were we able to do it in 2004 or 2005, as things got steadily worse (although things were still much better then than now).
I suppose we could have real fun comparing the Iraqi war with WWII, where we went from Pearl Harbor to V-J Day in three years, 8 months, and 8 days. We were able to beat Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo in a period comparable to that beginning with our invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, and ending eight weeks from today.
A good overview of the situation in Iraq was recently provided by Tomdispatch. It’s called “Iraq at the Gates of Hell: George Bush’s Iraq in 21 Questions” and just to give you a feel for it, here’s the first few:
I would highly encourage reading the whole thing. It’s well sourced (go there for all the supporting links to what I’ve C&P’ed here), and pulls together a lot of things that one tends to see separately if at all.
Note: that 1,493 figure (in answer to “How many Iraqi civilians are being killed countrywide?” is neither a monthly nor an annual figure; it’s the figure for the July-August 2006 two-month period.
Yes, it’s called “civil war”. There is no “insurgency”, there is a multitude of factions who hate each other as well as us.
It already has. It’s done.
Which is an argument for never withdrawing, because all we are doing is making the “terror apparatus” stronger by being there. “The beatings will continue until morale improves”.
No, I pointed out you we engaging in Bush style false patriotism, making speeches about noble sacrifices you expected other people to make. A common theme among war supporters; they don’t care how many Iraqis they kill for their own good, and they feel all noble about it. The White Man’s Burden all over again.
Ryan: Watch, read, learn, and then maybe, just maybe you’ll stop posting platitudes that have nothing to do with what’s going on in the ground: IOW, reality.
Still disagree? As I’ve told you many times, step out of your Mom’s basement and go fight for your warped ideals. With a gun – against people that hate you and fire back.
Yes but even extremists such as Sadr don’t want to see even a Federalised Iraq come about.
Sorry I didn’t know the news cites about Anbar I posted had nothing to do with what I was actually talking about :rolleyes:
Don’t care with the ‘Bush lied’ crap, don’t care for the WMD argument since I was against the invasion in 2003, I’m simply stating what the US has to do in my mind for it to succeed in Iraq. End of.
I don’t have a basement.
Yes it does because you’re increasing the threat of another terrorist attack if you allow said extremists to operate under impunity because of US withdrawal.
I read the news all the time, and the people who regard Iraq as a ‘disaster’ or ‘success’ are taking extremities on both points. We’re in the middle between both.
It’s called ‘fighting the insurgency’ where the Iraqi security forces (mainly the Army) fight both sides, shia or sunni, to preserve the state.
You know it’s not because the violence if left unabated would be able to get Rwanda style and you know it.
Rubbish, you’re stating we’d be there forever on the flimsy pretext of Iraqi armed forces never being able to be trained to a point where they could stand on their own. It’s not really the Iraqi Armed forces which are the problem, it’s the political will at the top which needs attention, fix that and everything else falls into place.
Yet you don’t care how many Iraqis/Americans die as a result of leaving a failed state within the midst of an American withdrawal. Like I said before, I don’t care about your nihilism, sloganeering or defeatist attitude, Iraq can still be ‘won’ in the sense of it being supported for a long time, however it will take a major effort on both sides to bring it about.
I’m getting pretty tired of the ‘armchair quarterback’ accusations, if I can’t give my opinion on a subject I support, because I somehow have to have been there, then where’s the debate people want who have different opinions?
You’re allowed to criticize the conduct of the war without needing to join the military on the ground. But Ryan Liam isn’t allowed to defend the war without grabbing a rife?
… I’m thinking of a word. Three syllables. Starts with H.
Regardless, this whole “you can’t defend the war without joining the military” thing is such a crap argument that I’m surprised it’s been repeated so frequently. First of all, it obviously only applies to those supporting the war, and doesn’t apply to those opposing it or criticizing the troops.
Second, if the chickenhawk rule applies, then the civilian branches of government would have no control over the military. Is that what you’re arguing for?
Third, why should the “chickenhawk” rule only apply to this war? If you’ve got a problem with US policy, then I guess you can’t complain unless you’re actually in Congress.
And if you’ve got a problem with pedophilia in the Catholic Church, then you can’t complain unless you’re a Catholic minister.
And if you’ve got a problem with that referee’s call in the last ManU-Arsenal game, then I guess you can’t complain unless you’re willing to give up your current job and go become a referee.
On the other hand, we should listen to what Hitler would have said about the war, because at least he had the courage to pick up a rifle in World War 1.
It’s not so much an argument as an attempt to bully the speaker into shutting up. It’s an attempt to shout him/her down by calling him unpatriotic, cowardly, or devious. It’s an intellectually unserious argument.
And handing them an constant stream of new supporters doesn’t ? Convincing the world that the terrorists have a point doesn’t ? They don’t already “operate under impunity” ?
Tens of thousands dead with no end in sight and it’s not a disaster ? Destruction and suffering all across Iraq and it’s not a disaster ? What would have to happen there to make it a disaster in your mind ? Does the Devil need to show up and personally take charge or something ?
And the distinction between that and a civil war is ?
And what makes you think it won’t, no matter what we do ? If anything we make things worse by being there.
We’ll be there until the last drop of oil is sucked out of the ME, or until we are forced out militarily or politically. If one pretext fails, we’ll get another, or stop bothering.
The majority of the population support attacks on our troops. A large number of Iraqis support killing one another. The people “at the top” don’t matter; by working in an American backed government they have given up all moral, political and religious authority. It doesn’t matter what brand of toadies we shove into office there; they can do nothing.
I do care how many Iraqis die, which is one reason I want to remove the Americans as soon as possible. I support the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, as I believe they fight for an evil man and an evil cause. I’d be perfectly happy if the Iraqis managed to kill all of them somehow.
It has nothing to do with you not being there. It has everything to do with your willingness to demand that others sacrifice for your cause against their will. You have a fantasy of how you want Iraq to be, and your chosen method is to sacrifice the Iraqis to achieve it, whether or not they have any desire to live out your fantasy.
You’ve obviously got too much time in your hands. A rifle might be just the thing to fill them – and all that free time – with.
Meanwhile…pardon me while I :::::yaaaawn::::, but I happen to have a complete and utter lack of respect for anyone who keeeps supporting this carnage.
So much free time that I actually think about my beliefs and arguments, rather than pulling them off of placards and bumper stickers? Yes, I do have that much free time.
But excuse me, That’s your response? I point out how utterly un-serious and intellectually dishonest that argument is, so you regurgitate the same argument at me, too? You’re like a child who’s just learned a bad word, repeating it over and over whether the situation calls for it or not.
Oh, how will my self esteem ever survive such a hit! Here I am, filled with nothing but the highest respect for the way your arguments seem to sag under the weight of all that deep thinking. The way you create a box of logic in which to trap war supporters. The way your arguments dance and intermingle, like a rhetorical aurora borealis (or at least a rhetorical 6th grade social).
We can play this both ways, what surprises is me is that a man of your age has so much anger yet so little time to pick up a placard outside the White House lawn. Tell me, is it that hard to get out of the swimming pool? (I saw the picture)
See the futility of it? That kind of rubbish deflects from the real debate, which is what I’m trying to have.
Someone of your age should be able to respect other peoples opinions without constant name calling, as if this equals the argument, which it doesn’t.
They’ll be coming in droves if we withdrawal and simply allow an already large sized security vaccuum in the country get bigger.
But there is an end in sight, it’s just one that no one wants to forsee, which is what I said before, the training of Iraqi security forces, and organisation of political leadership which is effective in running the country. Disaster would imply Iraq completely imploding, with absolutely no effective government whatsoever, which would be something similar to Somalia, and also completely abandoned. We’re inbetween us succeeding and failing at the moment.
Iraqis on both sides want to see an end to the conflict caused by various militias and insurgents, and there is an agreement on both sides to the style of government now in Baghdad. If there was a civil war, there’d be no army or policeforce, only militias and forces divided on a sectarian basis, something which the MNF and Iraqi Government have been trying to avoid.
Because of the level of violence there is, there shouldn’t be any precursor to that kind of atrocity, however since the Government is US backed, they can’t exactly go around doing this kinda of thing without them noticing. Hence why it won’t.
Then we would of done it years ago. Oil is a factor, however it’s not the* only factor* in the situation.
No, what you’ve got is a population divided by fear, and a lack of an adequate security force to protect them, so in this situation, you’re going to hear the extremities of both sides take precedence over the other, I bet if Iraqi forces were beginning and took competent steps to increasing security, those voices would be lessened.
As for shoving into office, they selected them themselves, and elected said parties to government. The US might influence the decisions, but only to ensure the political process doesn’t become deadlocked permanently.
Then I pity you for your lack of compassion for both sides. Strange how you have blind hatred for a people and yet talk of how such hatred will destroy them.
Iraqi insurgents are fighting your battles against American troops, why aren’t you there?
My point exactly.
Again, nihilistic sloganeering from your part yet again, so much so that any debate with you proves fruitless, as it surmounts the same result.
As for the fantasia part, it was my opinion as to what needs to be achieved in order to succeed in Iraq.
Which can’t happen while we are there. We discredit any government simply be being there, we discourage capable and loyal people from joining any security force because we are there.
Why should I be ? I’m not trying to form them into a mold I’ve poured for them.
I am not a “nihilist”. You are the one whose ideology amounts to death worship, whose beliefs never bring anything but death and suffering, and who never shows any concern for the death and suffer he creates. It is you who holds beliefs that are utterly evil and destructive; it is you who are the nihilist, a promoter of endless destruction and death.