[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
So I’ll say, again, why are you saying there is no Iraqi Government when in fact the governments there, it’s just heavily divided, as say Lebanon.
[/QUOTE]
Because it has little or no power outside the Green Zone, and can’t order the Americans to go away. It’s like me claiming to be a government because I can give people orders in my own home and occasionally have them obeyed.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because it has little or no power outside the Green Zone…
[/QUOTE]
This “Office of the Commander in Chief” development may point to a breakdown even within the green zone:
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
So I’ll say, again, why are you saying there is no Iraqi Government when in fact the governments there, it’s just heavily divided, as say Lebanon.
[/QUOTE]
For the very same reasons I mentioned before and Der Trish was kind enough to repeat for you.
Would it trouble you much to read what’s already posted prior to asking what’s already been answered? Makes it seem like you’re actually attempting to debate you know – as in actually reading what you’re responding to.
Squink’s latest post is rather relevant as well if you wish to keep informed.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because it has little or no power outside the Green Zone, and can’t order the Americans to go away. It’s like me claiming to be a government because I can give people orders in my own home and occasionally have them obeyed.
[/QUOTE]
But if the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that you, Der Trihs, were to carry Excalibur…
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
But if the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that you, Der Trihs, were to carry Excalibur…
[/QUOTE]
I’d sell it to a pawn shop *. Remember what happened to King Arthur . . .
- As happened in a Mercedes Lackey story, for the same reasons I would.
The entire point of the escalation “strategy” is to give the Iraqi “government” the breathing room it needs to form a genuine national unification or something. Instead, their “Parliament” wants to go take a two-month vacation. No, the situation is not improving, *and it ain’t gonna. *
How *do * you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
One in three US combat troops would condone torture: survey
No additional comment needed nor supplied on that particular article on your American Heroes.
OTOH, I despise/loathe anyone whose been on BushCo’s side from the get-go, and further, continues doing so to this very day. I, therefore lacks words – at the very least, in GD, though I doubt The Pit would be of much help for expressing my feelings. Mere words, simply do not suffice to describe what I think of them. Disgust? Comptempt? Bah! Just words, not feelings.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
The entire point of the escalation “strategy” is to give the Iraqi “government” the breathing room it needs to form a genuine national unification or something. Instead, their “Parliament” wants to go take a two-month vacation.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently they have serious problems getting a quorum even when they’re in session. Can’t seem to Google anything good, but I’ve read elsewhere that a lot of them live in London these days. Maybe they could just convene there.
[QUOTE=duality72]
The Iraqi people don’t want us there and it’s their call. I’ll sleep just fine.
[/QUOTE]
When they make that call, fine. But they haven’t.
Even if that is the case, why would you sleep just fine? Does it not bother you at all to think that withdrawal could doom them to even worse circumstances?
I somewhat doubt that the Serbians wanted us going into their country in the 1990s either, but it would have been a great wrong to have not intervened.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
:::sigh:::
Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show
They say the same god damn thing in EVERY freaking poll taken. Perhaps it’s time some of you started paying attention?
[/QUOTE]
No one makes major policy decisions on polling, NO ONE. Not liberals, not conservatives, not teh evil Bush or the savior of the world Democrats; polling is not where decisions are made.
The elected government of Iraq speaks for the Iraqi people, that is the situation around the world people do not make foreign policy decisions through polling, their governments make them. That’s how it has to be.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
So, again, I ask: What ‘Iraqi Government’?
[/QUOTE]
If the opposition speaking badly about the ruling party = “No Government” then there’s no government in any democratic country in the world.
And the current Iraqi government has broken with the United States at various times on issues and has acted independently of us enough times that I find it spurious to say they have no sovereignty or that they have no independent authority. The evidence suggests otherwise.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I somewhat doubt that the Serbians wanted us going into their country in the 1990s either, but it would have been a great wrong to have not intervened.
[/QUOTE]
Where’d you pull that one from? Are you now calling what we’re doing in Iraq an intervention? Actually, it’s probably not a bad idea for us to start defending countries from ourselves. Maybe we could divide our military into shirts and skins.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Leave. Immediately.
The Iraqis don’t want you there. It’s their problem, and they have a government now. Either it’ll last or it’ll be replaced; either way, the situation will not get worse, it’ll remain bad until such time as the conflicts are resolved, one way or another.
The “you broke it, you bought it” philosophy is plainly idiotic. If you come into my house and break my coffee table, I don’t want you to stick around and break my china cabinet, I want you to get the fuck out.
[/quote]
A country isn’t remotely comparable to a coffee table, your china cabinet, or your house. That comparison just doesn’t fly. We didn’t break Iraq, Iraq was already broken. Its people were starving and its rulers were living in gilded palaces.
You’re right, we do disagree on the facts. Osama bin Laden is one man, I couldn’t give a shit if we find him. The citizens of Iraq are way more important than an old medically challenged zealot wandering around in caves in Pakistan.
Your argument that ‘we’re going to fail’ is way off base. We can’t fail. This isn’t our country. We can let the Iraqis fail or we can try to stop it, and I’d rather injure myself trying to save someone from death than stand by and do nothing, to make a similarly poor personal-level analysis to the situation.
The UN and the world regularly send peacekeeping forces to hotspots to try and curtail the violence of civil wars or even bring them to a stop. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. We did a decent job in the Balkans, we (this is the West in general) didn’t do so hot in Somalia. We had to let Somalia tear itself up and its standard of living fell so low you could barely qualify the region as hosting civilization any more. If we’re willing to intervene to try and stop this stuff when we weren’t the reason for it starting in the first place we sure as hell need to do so when we were the reason.
Sure, Iraq has a ton of underlying conflicts that no one but Iraq is responsible for, but we’re the ones who removed the stability that kept those conflicts contained. Would they have boiled to the surface at some point down the road if we’d never invaded? Sure. But that’s irrelevant because we did invade.
The idea that “letting them fight it out” is the way to solve the problem is, to me, beyond idiotic. Do you have any evidence to suggest that once we pull out, they’ll fight a quick civil war, and move on? You’re aware that some civil wars CURRENTLY ONGOING have been going on for DECADES? Shit, Afghanistan has been in a perpetual state of war since the 1970s and a state of civil war since the early 90s.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
If the opposition speaking badly about the ruling party = “No Government” then there’s no government in any democratic country in the world.
And the current Iraqi government has broken with the United States at various times on issues and has acted independently of us enough times that I find it spurious to say they have no sovereignty or that they have no independent authority. The evidence suggests otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious:
http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=140
Iraq is number 4 in the index of failed states.
only Sudan, Congo and the Ivory Coast are considered worse.
One element on why this is so:
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
No one makes major policy decisions on polling, NO ONE. Not liberals, not conservatives, not teh evil Bush or the savior of the world Democrats; polling is not where decisions are made.
[/QUOTE]
If you are implying that not ALL political decisions are influenced by polling, sure I’ll agree. If you’re claiming that polls can’t change how politicians vote on policy, I think that’s silly. Hell, I’m still pissed about the Dems caving on the “Authorization of Forces” crap, but they considered it political suicide to do otherwise, based on what the polls said. Some of them (okay, Lieberman) would have certainly voted for it anyway, but all?
[QUOTE=Boo Boo Foo]
Sorry, that’s not a fact - merely an opinion. Presenting it as a fact, even letting it be an imposter as a fact, still doesn’t hide the reality that your position is ultimately an opinion. Indeed, there is a strenuous body of counter opinion which argues that an immediate withdrawal will actually open the floodgates on a mini-Rwanda on the Euphrates. If such a thing were to happen, the numbers who will die will doutbless be greater than if the USA stays. That’s an opinion which is no less valid.
To be fair however, consider this… the most stable, peaceful 15 years in Lebanon’s history this past century have been when Syria occupied the country after the civil war of the mid 1980’s. After Syria pulled out, Lebanon became an exercise in anarchy, and lo and behold, Hizbolla started going nuts on the Israeli border - something they NEVER would have done while Syria still ran the place.
My example is perfect example, in the Middle East no less, of how an occupying force can actually be a force for good. It’s rare, but it can happen. Lebanon was an absolute shithole back in 1989 - a total shithole. Granted, the occupiers were a local country and not the United States - which means that if the USA pulls out of Iraq, there is an extremely high likelihood that a neighbouring country(s) will do a Syria and fill the power vacuum and invade Iraq out of pure self interests. This last outcome is an outcome not many people are considering it seems to me.
[/QUOTE]
Even CNN’s top military analysts has said a U.S. withdrawal will be disastrous for Iraq. And CNN isn’t exactly known for its conservative editorial bent.
Lebanon is a great example of just how bad things can get if you let civil wars “fight themselves out.”
What’s unfortunate is the anti-war side, people like RickJay have long been presenting themselves as morally superior. When their position for all intents and purposes is, “let Iraq burn, tough for them.”
This is the darker side of the Democratic strategy of withdrawal, and something the Dems don’t talk about. They talk about “ending the war” they can’t end the war with withdrawal any more than the Republicans can with the “surge”, withdrawal will absent us from the conflict, it sure as hell won’t end it. I wish more Americans realized that our withdrawal would doom an entire nation to anarchy and chaos that quite possibly could reach a level unparalleled in the history of the Middle East. As bad as things are now, there are at least pockets of stability and some areas where general progress has been made; there’s nothing to suggest it won’t get immensely worse with a weaker central government with weak military power.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
No one makes major policy decisions on polling, NO ONE. Not liberals, not conservatives, not teh evil Bush or the savior of the world Democrats; polling is not where decisions are made.
The elected government of Iraq speaks for the Iraqi people, that is the situation around the world people do not make foreign policy decisions through polling, their governments make them. That’s how it has to be.
[/QUOTE]
Since the elected government speaks for the people it represents, it only makes sense that at least some attention is paid to the polls. Otherwise, you end up with an elected government that believes it’s doing the public’s bidding, when it’s actually doing the opposite.
The point of bringing up these polls, is not to argue that policy should be dictated solely by what the polls say - it’s that the polls may actually have some useful information to lend to the situation.
LilShieste
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
The problem is, (a) we’re going to leave sometime, and (b) there’s no evidence to suggest the situation in country is improving on account of our staying.
So the proper comparison is not between what will happen in Iraq in 2009 if we leave in 2008 v. if we stay, but if the alternatives are between leaving in 2008 or leaving in 2014, what will happen in Iraq in 2009 v. what will happen in Iraq in 2015.
There’s zero evidence I can see that what will happen in Iraq the year after our inevitable withdrawal will be better as a result of our having stayed longer. Maybe you can provide some.
[/QUOTE]
If we’re going to leave on a strict time table, we should withdraw immediately. No six month warning, no six day warning, start pulling up the tents and leaving immediately in a massive redeployment.
Unless we’re committed to staying until some semblance of stability happens, then we are indeed wasting our time.
That’s why the “time table” is stupid. A six month or twelve month time table shows you’re not committed to stability in Iraq, so why bother? What are those 6 months? Just more dead Americans with no commitment to anything greater.
[QUOTE=DMC]
Where’d you pull that one from? Are you now calling what we’re doing in Iraq an intervention? Actually, it’s probably not a bad idea for us to start defending countries from ourselves. Maybe we could divide our military into shirts and skins.
[/QUOTE]
My point was, not all interventions in a country should be based on whether or not the populace wants us there.
I don’t view Iraq as an intervention, I actually don’t even view the current situation in Iraq to be part of the same war we started in 2003. In 2003 we invaded Iraq with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein by military force. We did so, for all intents and purposes we “won” that war.
It’s often called the war in Iraq to this day, I wish it was “the war in Iraq.” Wars have clear winners and clear losers, or at least a starting date and an ending date.
The current situation in Iraq is a complex situation in which the United States is attempting to provide security amidst multiple warring groups, some international terrorists, some anti-American fighters, but mostly the key issue is with domestic conflicts. Sunni versus Shiite, stuff that goes back centuries in the Mesopotamian region.
Saddam Hussein and his Iraq aren’t entirely dissimilar form the Balkan state of Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia united varied ethnic, national, and religious groups under one shaky flag. When that collapsed, you had open warfare between all sides.
In effect we’ve Balkanized Iraq by tearing down its flag; if we had never invaded it still would have happened, but probably decades later and then we would have probably still intervened in an attempt at “peace keeping” except then we’d feel no moral responsibility for the situation and once it got ugly we’d withdraw and let the natives murder themselves wholesale because we can’t be troubled to try any more (like we did in Somalia.)
Despite your claims, I’m not saying we need to defend Iraq from us, we need to continue to try and protect it from itself. That’s what peacekeeping is all about. This isn’t some stupid attempt to hide the fact that we’re responsible for the current situation in Iraq, we are, there, got that out of the way. Accepting responsibility to my mind doesn’t equate with saying we shouldn’t try and fix the situation, if anything it equates with the converse of that.
[QUOTE=LilShieste]
Since the elected government speaks for the people it represents, it only makes sense that at least some attention is paid to the polls. Otherwise, you end up with an elected government that believes it’s doing the public’s bidding, when it’s actually doing the opposite.
The point of bringing up these polls, is not to argue that policy should be dictated solely by what the polls say - it’s that the polls may actually have some useful information to lend to the situation.
LilShieste
[/QUOTE]
My point is, our government deals with the Iraqi government, period. We don’t deal with France or Germany based on what their polling says, we deal with them based on the actions of their leadership (and vice versa.) It is the job of Iraqi politicians to respond to Iraqi polling, and if that lead them to request our leaving, I’d be okay with that.
I’d be sad that they wanted us to leave, because I think it’d make things worse; but I’d be willing to give that level of respect to their sovereign government.